This is an interesting piece that does a good job of bringing several different voices into the discussion. However, there's no satisfying consideration of how voters can alternatively evaluate candidates today on standards that are more predictive of their performance in the White House.
Helpful article. Premise of article can't be repeated enough.
That the skills that get one elected are completely useless once one is in office is the single greatest justification for campaign reform.
One criticism. Authors write: "In 1860, Republican delegates knew Abraham Lincoln had the leadership skills to face the danger of the South leaving the Union, Beschloss said."
I was dying to know how they knew that. The authors just left it hanging.
this article includes thoughtful quotes from a number of sources to make its points. what's not included in this article, and, to be fair, nowhere i have seen yet, is how to achieve a system of choosing as leader one which helps to inspire average voters to integrate their need for "lofty vision and decisiveness" with the need in any leader for "pragmatism and flexibility", and "campaign slogans" which sound wonderful, and actual "governance". until then, disappointment or worse, seems inevitable.
This is an excellent article about the process of selecting candidates for President. It gives an argument against the frivolousness of many of the current crop of Presidential candidates. They are addicted to slogans, as the authors note, and there is little attention given to their basic qualifications to run the government, qualifications that are well set out in the text. It also points out the poor quality of questions in some of the debates (e.g., CNN, Des Moines Register).