Loved this article. David Brooks picks apart the notion that what we typically look for in our political candidates is not a good man or woman for the job, but a shock-and-awe savior. History alone can bear out how silly and futile this expectation can be.
“The central problem is that Mitt Romney doesn’t fit the mold of what many Republicans want in a presidential candidate. They don’t want a technocratic manager. They want a bold, blunt radical outsider who will take on the establishment, speak truth to power and offend the liberal news media…
“They don’t want Organization Man. They want Braveheart.”
“The question is: Are they right to want this? Well, if they want an in-your-face media campaign that will produce delicious thrills for the true believers, they are absolutely right. But if they actually want to elect an effective executive who is right for this moment, they are probably not right.”
Here’s another good snapshot:
“It’s exciting to have charismatic leaders. But often the best leaders in business, in government and in life are not glittering saviors. They are professionals you hire to get a job done…
“The strongest case for Romney is that he’s nobody’s idea of a savior.”
While I hope you do not hear me endorsing anyone in particular with full, undoubted support, I do think that Brooks argument has a lot of credence. My hope and prayer for the upcoming election is that we would vote more with our reason, than responding to the sensational.
Link to full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/opinion/brooks-in-defense-of-romney.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share