Romney versus Obama(how can voters choose their future president?))

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

While the presidential primary elections in the United States are not over, MittRomney is now almost certain to be the party’s nominee to face DemocraticPresident Barack Obama in November.

As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney built a record as a competent andmoderate conservative, a political profile that suited him to the state’s electorate. But theRepublican Party’s far right wing dominates the primaries, so Romney has workedhard to escape the “moderate” label by staking out very conservativepositions. Now, as the party’s presumptivenominee, he must move back toward the political center, where the majority ofvoters are to be found.

So which is the real Mitt Romney? And how can voters judge the twocandidates?

Obama has a proven track record, albeit one that has disappointed many whovoted for him in 2008. Of course, his supporters argue that he had to adapt totwo ongoing wars and the worst recession since the 1930’s. Moreover, after the 2010 mid-term elections, ahostile Republican-controlled House ofRepresentatives blocked his initiatives.

Romney, for his part, will hold upObama’s early, still-unmet promises, whileObama will call Romney a “flip-flopper” whochanges his positions to suit the moment (and the audience). In fact, thedifficulty of predicting the eventual winner’s performance in office is notnew.

In his 2000 presidential bid, George W. Bush famously promised “compassionate conservatism” and a humble foreignpolicy, but governed very differently, as when he decided to invade Iraq.Likewise, Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson campaigned on promises of peace,but each took Americato war shortly after being elected.

Do such post-election changes in direction make a mockeryof democracy? How can voters make intelligent judgments when campaigns are socarefully scripted and slickly promoted?

Leadership theorists suggest that we should pay lessattention to leaders’ policy promises than to their emotional intelligence – their self-mastery and ability to reach out to others. Contrary to the view thatemotions interfere with clear thinking, the ability to understand and regulateemotions can result in more effective thinking.

As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes reputedlyquipped after meeting Franklin D. Roosevelt:“Second-class intellect, but first-classtemperament.” Most historians would agree that Roosevelt’ssuccess as a leader rested more on his good nature than on his analyticalskills. The energy and optimism that he unleashed in his administration’s firsthundred days did not reflect concrete policy proposals in his campaign.

Psychologists have wrestled with theconcept of intelligence, and how to assess it, for more than a century. GeneralIQ tests measure dimensions of intelligence such as verbal and spatial dexterity, but IQ scores generally predict onlyabout 10-20% of success in life. And, while experts disagree about how much ofthe other 80% is attributable to emotional intelligence, they generally agreethat it is an important and learnable skill that increases with age andexperience, and that individuals possess it to varying degrees.

Leaders work hard to manage their public images, which requires some ofthe same emotional discipline and skill that successful actors possess. RonaldReagan’s experience in Hollywood served him wellin this regard, and Roosevelt was a master atimage management. Despite his pain and difficulty in moving on legs crippled bypolio, he maintained a cheery exterior and avoided being photographed in awheelchair.

Whether they realize it or not, leaders always convey signals. Emotionalintelligence involves the awareness and control of such signals, and theself-discipline that prevents personal psychological needs from distortingpolicy. If emotional intelligence is inauthentic,others will likely find out in the long run.

Richard Nixon, for example, was strong on cognitive skills, but weak onemotional intelligence. He was able to strategize effectively on foreignpolicy, but was less able to control the personal insecurities that eventuallyled to his downfall – a shortcoming thatemerged only over time. Indeed, it was not until well into his presidency thatthe public learned of his infamous “enemieslist.”

Bush showed emotional intelligence in midlife by mastering his problemswith alcohol, and in displaying the courage topersevere with unpopular policies. But, at some point, perseverance becomes emotional stubbornness. Like Wilson, Bush had an obstinatecommitment to his vision that inhibited learning and adjustment. Perhaps theflexibility that Obama and Romney have shown is not such a bad quality for apresident after all.

The rigors of the prolonged campaignprovide voters with some clues about staminaand self-discipline. Each of the Republican candidates took a turn asfront-runner in this race, and the rigors of the primary season exposed theflaws in some, like Texas Governor Rick Perry, who were initially attractive.Now, in the general election, how Romney, in particular, relates to his party’splatform will tell us something about the strength of his independence and futurecabinet appointments.

But the most important variable for voters to examine isthe candidate’s biography. I do not meanthe slick books and television advertisementsthat are produced for their campaigns. While image consultants and actingability can mask a candidate’s character, anintegrated life over time is the best basis to judge the authenticity of the next president’s temperament and how he will govern.

Above all, sophisticated voters will themselves be emotionally intelligentenough to be prepared for surprises. When their candidate disappoints them – ashe inevitably will, regardless of the election’s outcome – they will bear inmind that democracy is the worst system, except for all of the others.

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：President future versus choose Romney president political primary profile future

As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney built a record as a competent andmoderate conservative, a political profile that suited him to the state’s electorate. But theRepublican Party’s far right wing dominates the primaries, so Romney has workedhard to escape the “moderate” label by staking out very conservativepositions. Now, as the party’s presumptivenominee, he must move back toward the political center, where the majority ofvoters are to be found.

How can voters make intelligent judgments when campaigns are so carefully scripted and slicklypromoted?

Leadership theorists suggest that we should payless attention to leaders’ policy promises than to their emotional intelligence.

Psychologists have wrestled with theconcept of intelligence, and how to assess it, for more than a century. GeneralIQ tests measure dimensions of intelligence such as verbal and spatial dexterity, but IQ scores generally predict onlyabout 10-20% of success in life. And, while experts disagree about how much ofthe other 80% is attributable to emotional intelligence, they generally agreethat it is an important and learnable skill that increases with age andexperience, and that individuals possess it to varying degrees.

As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes reputedly quippedafter meeting Franklin D. Roosevelt: “Second-classintellect, but first-class temperament.”

Richard Nixon, for example, was strong on cognitiveskills, but weak on emotional intelligence. He was able to strategizeeffectively on foreign policy, but was less able to control the personalinsecurities that eventually led to his downfall.

The rigors of theprolonged campaign provide voters with some clues about stamina and self-discipline.But the most important variable for voters toexamine is the candidate’s biography.