This concept gets tossed around a lot during election years. He (or now she) is trying to “act Presidential.” But what the heck does that really mean? Today, Common Sense Conspiracy examines just what “acting Presidential” really entails, and why it’s appropriate to address it with two candidates that definitely are not “Presidential” by any stretch of the imagination. Okay, so let’s dive in.
So, you hear that term “Presidential.” What does it really mean? It is always used during election years around this time as the supposed transformation of an ordinary extremely-rich politician suddenly exuding values that make he or she a leader in the minds of ordinary Americans. It is a measure that is used to evaluate Presidential candidates, and yet, has absolutely no fixation in reality.
After all, who is that role model that you are comparing these wannabes to? Was George H. W. Bush “presidential” while he was hurling at a dinner with foreign leaders? Was George W. Bush ever “presidential” for one second in his entire eight-year reign? Wait a minute. How about one of our current candidate’s “better half” Bill Clinton? Was he “presidential” while he was boinking the help?
Let’s even look at also-rans. Al Gore? Was he “presidential” while losing to what would become one of the most unpopular Presidents of all time? John Kerry? He lost to George W. Bush while he already was coming into his own as one of the most unpopular Presidents of all time. Who, then, would you point to?
Who is the poster boy for “Presidentiality” that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton should be looking up to?
The answer is themselves. Both represent everything that the above examples bring to the concept of being “Presidential.” So next time you hear a talking head talking about that, remember that it is only meant to sway you one way or another and then continue on your merry way watching the piecemeal destruction of the country.