Joseph Lovoi
Essay #1
GOVT 2301
Feagin
“Above Politics,” Artist or Craftsman; Which does America Want?
Art or craft, these two words were used thousands of years ago by the great
philosopher Plato in his work Gorgias. In this work an art is defined by an endeavor that
is concerned with “the good of the object.” While in contrast, a craft is simply superficial
acts to make one’s self more presentable to the public. These two schemes for classifying
the modern practices of man no better relate to the position of our United States
President. We seem to find ourselves asking the question, is this position just a facade of
good manners and rhetoric, or is the inner shell of a President ever observed as the chief
factor that makes a good leader? This question is not an easy one to answer in any
respect, for any American would like to say it is a President’s inner attributes that matter
more than just a “Hollywood” appearance to the public. Is this really what we want? In
the case of President Carter obviously not. In today’s modern society there is a great deal
of emphasis put on the physical attributes of our Commander and Chief and not on the
inner morals and intellect that a fine leader posses. All this becomes blatantly clear when
we step back and really scrutinize a few examples of craft over art, but keep in mind the
question: is it the artist or the craftsman that makes a more successful President in the
American public’s eyes.
Craft, to many Americans we think of a craft is something cute we could buy at
an art show. As mentioned above, the meaning of this word, according to Plato, has not
changed one lick. We as Americans have shown a trend in President approval rating that
“glits and glamour” are much more important than substance. A craft is something
cosmetic and some of our modern Presidents have been almost strictly cosmetic. Ronald
Reagan is a cosmetic make over in a position that is starting to take an entirely different
stance on helping the nation. Reagan, a craft in himself, was wonderful at working the
media and using them as his biggest allies in the war of public approval. He signified a
man that was strong and powerful, unyielding to foreign terrorism, and could solve
America’s problems with an iron fist. Yet, this iron fist did not always punch down the
right doors. For example, Reagan is credited with his conquest in Lebanon that
exemplified his brawn not his brain. According to Wicker, 262 Marines died in this
foolish campaign. There is no amount of hubris that constitutes the loss of American
soldiers. Wicker states on the Reagan administration, “Reagan’s kind of leadership,
according to polls, is that a public that does not strongly support many of his programs
seems to like him personally.” This raises the question that just precedes this quote.
Wicker states, “In his case, what he does and what he is are apparently judged
separately.” If Wicker’s statement is true, then what are the qualifications and morals a
good President should contain? In the recollection of recently past Presidents, scandal
has been the best friend of the inhabitants of the White House. President Clinton is a
model candidate that fits the mold of Wicker’s last statement. During his presidency he
too exemplified what is meant by a true craftsman. The first allegations were on the
issues of “White Water,” where the then President Clinton was skimming money off the
top during his terms as the Arkansas Governor and using it to benefit himself and close
personal friends. This was just the beginning of the wretched stench of scandal and
moral corruption that would follow him like a plague throughout his presidency. On the
flip-side, this clear example of a person that has terrible morals still managed to have a
higher public approval at the end of his term than when he first took office. This should
be very distressing to the modern American society. When a man is put through the
rigors of a campaign many bad traits come to the forefront through the mud-slinging
tactics that many politicians resort to. This practice is very good at either making or
destroying a candidate’s personal integrity. I have a hard time swallowing this lump of
moral slandering that seems to make no difference in the way America has chosen some
of their leaders. It is not the facade that should be taken as the measure of true personal
moral attributes, but their past records of moral and ethical deliberation and
exemplification. A leader should be judged on his ability as a leader that will look out for
the good of the people his is governing. In short, he should be an artist in the sense of
Plato’s definition.
This theory of being an artist sheds a hopeful light on an office that should
exemplify a man or woman that we see as a leader, that will have a cool head in matters
that try even the strongest, and that we know will always put the nation before himself.
An artist does things for “the good of the object,” according to Plato. In the case of our
President, the artist must do things for the good of the nation. Jimmy Carter is one of
America’s most forgotten Presidents. He is criticized for having to many irons in the fire,
and just not being an outstanding “craftsman.” Although he did have a huge problem
with tasking his battles, he was far from the loved craftsman appearance and embodied
what the country really needed, an artist. Carter was a brilliant man that was very
accomplished in many fields of study. Wicker uses the phrase “above politics” handily in
his composition about Carter. This phrase states exactly what type of leader he really
was. At the time, he seemed to be arrogant and uncaring about the nation, but it was the
nation that he so deeply loved. Wicker states “During Jimmy Carter’s entire four years in
office not one American died in combat.” This in itself states the love a leader should
have for his country, where every single person is important. This amazing feat was not
because there was not conflict during Carter’s administration. Rather it was an
exemplification of the cool calm negotiation that seemed repulsive to the American
public at the time, but in the long run, brought back all the hostages that were being held
in Iran alive. Even out of office Carter is still an example of a true American Leader. He
conducts himself in many humanitarian activities that benefit the nation on a daily basis.
One example of these activities is his role as a liaison in foreign affairs. As mentioned
above, he brought back the hostages from Iran alive, but it was not until after he had left
office that he convinced Ayatollah Khomeini to release the hostages back to the United
States. It is this undying love for America’s well being that is exemplified by the brilliant
man Jimmy Carter, and it is this love that a true leader should be fueled by.
With all these examples of craftsmanship and artisanship presented above the
question is still not answered. Is it the artist or the craftsman that makes a more
successful President in the American public’s eyes? It is in this question where the
American public lies to itself on what we want. Clear-cut analysis of the President’s
approval ratings over the course of just the leaders mentioned above, show that America
wants a President that is cosmetic. We want a facade of morality and compassion toward
the people of the nation with only political symbolism to ease our minds. This is contrary
to what is stated as public opinion on a leader the is “above politics.” The people of
America proved their response contrary to their expressed ideals. Wicker stated at the
close of his paper about Jimmy Carter’s term in office and the public’s response in this
manner, “And when they had the kind of President so many say they want-one who tries
to be “above politics”-they summarily threw him out of office.” What the American
public wants is someone to make them feel good. Wicker points out that one American
questioned White House aide, Anne Wexler, on the presidency of Jimmy Carter by
asking, “Why can’t you make me feel good about my President?” It is this type of
demand that drives the American opinion of a successful President, not the merit that is
exemplified in his or her public policies. In short, Americans what a leader to make them
feel good emotionally, not fiscally.