A media-based 'job interview' is key to finding out.
For the past 18 months, the country has enjoyed one of the most exciting presidential races in history, and naturally enough we have been asking: Who will win? But with troubles deepening here and abroad, the question increasingly becomes: Can the winner govern effectively?
In most recent elections, voters have gone to the polls with only a hazy idea of whether the man they are voting for will be an effective leader once in office. As Joe Klein argues in his recent book, "Politics Lost," the coming of television and the reliance upon primaries as a means of selecting a nominee have led journalists to focus more and more on the horse race: who is up, who is down, and who has raised the most money. Lost to sight has been "a sober assessment of character and leadership ability."
Sometimes we have gambled and won: Whatever you thought of his politics and his career as an actor, Ronald Reagan turned out to be a highly effective leader. But too often we have gambled and been unhappy: George W. Bush had that "Marlboro Man" look of a good president – and he had all the right pedigrees – but less than a third of the population is now happy with the results.
This year we cannot afford to keep gambling. No president in modern times has faced a more daunting agenda than awaits the man who wins in November; arguably, we have to go all the way back to Franklin Roosevelt in March 1933 to find a parallel.
From Day One, the incoming president will face ongoing dangers to the American economy: the credit crisis, an implosion in housing, and rising prices for fuel and food. Whatever glittering promises are made on the campaign trail, the fact is that the new president won't have any money to pay for them – not with federal deficits heading skyward. In Year two, the Bush tax cuts will expire. That means President Obama or McCain and Congress must agree on a new tax regime – always a donnybrook.