What it takes to be President...

While driving between appointments today, I was listening to "Imus in the Morning", humored by Don Imus and his mind numbing simplicity while waiting for my morning dose of actual news and current events coverage. At some point during the show, Don welcomed former Boston Globe columnist Mike Barnicle, a man known for his liberal tendencies and his devotion to, if not support by, the common working American. Barnicle and Imus eventually stumbled onto the topic of John Kerry's transcript and his 76 grade average from Yale. Barnicle mused that if Kerry had only revealed his transcript during the election, his C average would have bought him enough votes to take the White House. It was at this point that my blood pressure took over and forced me to change the station.

I know that everyone likes to boil down the election of 2004 as the Elite versus the Common Man or Smart versus Stupid. That kind of logic is both simplistic and naive. This was an election about war and fear and leadership, and Americans elected the man they felt was most qualified to keep this country safe and defeat the evils that are encroaching on our doorstep. Yet, I am still drawn back to the idea of mediocrity being the key to votes in our country.

I, like every other parent in the world, have faced the question "why do I have to go to school?", and like every other parent I have answered with "because school is important....you need to study and do well to make it in this world...., etc." What sometimes follows this statement is something along the lines of "....work hard, get good grades, and maybe you can be President someday." Now, that being said, what does it tell today's youth if we make that statement and then follow it by voting for the man or woman who is most mediocre, most common place, most average, like most of us.

I am not naive. I know that leadership is much more than simply good grades, or the use of big words, or the best image. But is it too much to want our leader, in fact, the most powerful person the world, to be a little more than average. Do we not want that person to be the most of a strong student....zthe person who paid attention in history and civics....the person who (forgive the brashness) made more A's than D's?

The story of Kerry's grades and the fact that the President did slightly better at Yale than his opponent leads us to several disturbing points. One, we entered into an election that gave us two candidates, neither of which earned their way into an Ivy League school and neither of which reaped its benefits. Granted, they networked and made friends and were hockey player and cheerleaders, but they missed the world class professors, the wealth of knowledge shoved before them, and the hard work that comes with the honing of said knowledge.

Second, we were misled by a candidate and his machine, which convinced the world that he was brilliant and his competitor wasn't. The Kerry campaign was an image juggernaut, churning out the idea that John Kerry was an intellectual on par with the brightest of his generation. So much for the desire for substance.

Third, we were given the President, a man who embraced and leveraged his image as the college goof ball. He slid through the educational process and he was proud. He was average, one of te people, the epitome of the common man. President Bush, at a commencement speech in 2001, addressed a group of Ivy Leaguers and stated (I am paraphrasing, but basically accurate) "....to the honor graduates with your gold tassels, I applaud your efforts. To the C graduates, I stand before you as the promise, some day you too can become president." Yes, his statement was greeted with chuckles and funloving laughter, but it was also honored with genuine applause. The latter reaction is what truly disturbs me.

I know that the presidency is a team, that the president is a leader of men and women pulled together to give him the best possible advice. I know that no one person can be a master at every discipline nor can that same one person be expected to fully grasp and navigate every difficult situation alone. But is it too much to ask for our leaders to be more rounded, to have achieved in school before they achieved in the political arena. I personally want a leader who cannot only build a team of intellectuals to guide him or her, I want that leader to be able to jump in and join them. I want a leader who can do the math in his or her head. I want a leader who knows his or her way around a library as well as a keg party. I don't think that is too much to ask.

In reality, no one honestly believes that President Bush or Senator Kerry went to Yale on their own merits, nor were they there to hone their trivia skills. They entered that school as a product of money and family history, with the intention of adding to a resume that would lead to greatness later on in life. Our system failed us, but only if you believe the cream should rise to the top. The political machine has a way of determining what it wants to show up on top most of the time. The election of 2004 produced a winner, but I don't believe either side really won.