Reply #56: I've read it several times and don't see where he has said its become "unconstitutional" [View All]

[onenote]

He says its evolved contrary to the process envisioned by the framers. Again, that is not the same as saying it "become unconstiutional" any more than elections have "become unconstitutional" because of the enactment of the Voting Rights Act which also is something not envisioned by the framers.

Will's argument that the evolution of the process away from what the founders envisioned is a bad thing is silly because (a) by his own admission the framers orginal notion quickly lost their practicality as political parties evolved and (b)the example he uses to make his point is bizarre -- Jimmy Carter. According to Will (citing the author on whose work he bases his argument) "the candidate whose path to the presidency most resembled Obama’s was Jimmy Carter. He, too, used an intensely personal and inspirational appeal to compensate for a thin résumé." A better example would have been Reagan, who was a far better "communicator" than Carter and had an similarly thin resume (Carter served two terms in the State Senate and one term as Governor and had a military career and successful business career; Reagan served two terms as governor and was an actor). Of course, Will can't use Reagan as an example because Reagan is his hero.

The problem with Will's column isn't that it suggests that Obama's election (or Carter's or anyone else's) is legally "unconstitutional" -- its that it is mistaken in its premise that the approach envisioned by the framers invariably produces better presidents than the current approach. That's a historically unsustainable view. We have had a series of elections in recent years in which neither candidate could be reasonably considered to command "intensely personal and inspirational appeal": Ford/Carter; Bush/Gore; Bush/Kerry; Bush/Dukakis; and even Clinton/Dole and Clinton/Bush. During my lifetime, the candidates that have met that description are Kennedy, Reagan, and now Obama. Earlier in this century, FDR met that standard. And while I disagree with the policies of Reagan, he, like FDR (and, I believe, like Kennedy had he not been killed), was a "successful" leader.

THere is every reason to believe that Obama can be the next in that line of successful leaders.