It seems to be my plight, every election year, to ponder the one recurring question of American politics. To wit: How a country so rich in great men can consistently put forth mediocrity for the most powerful position in the world, the President of the United States. It seems to be an inescapable flaw in the very nature of Democratic government. The almost genetic fear among the American people of innovation and chance-taking in centers of power and the great tendency of democratic society to suppress excellence and quash extraordinary men have, in my opinion, nurtured this particularly wicked seed to full flower. Americans are most comfortable with mediocrity and they acquire it with clock-like regularity.

Why this is so was discussed in a prescient article by Lord James Bryce, the British Ambassador to the United States, in 1888. His article, titled "Why Great Men Are Not Chosen President", was part of his monumental The American Commonwealth. Lord Bryce lists three main reasons why this is true:

1. In America, most men who have "the best ability, both for thought and for action, for planning and for executing, rush into a field which is comparatively narrow in Europe: the business of developing the material resources of the country."

2. The "minor leagues" (my phrase, not his) of politics (i.e. Congress) "give fewer opportunities for personal distinction, fewer modes in which a man may commend himself to his countrymen by eminent capacity in thought, in speech, or in administration, than is the case in the free countries of Europe."

3. "A third reason is that eminent men make more enemies and give those enemies more assailable points, than obscure men do. They are, therefore, less desirable candidates."

Bryce goes on to discuss the differences between a politician and a statesman. The politician, the mediocre man who alienates the least number of factions, is - in party politics - considered the most desirable candidate. He may not, as Bryce puts it, "draw in quite so many votes from the moderate men of the other side as the brilliant man would, but he will not lose nearly so many from his own ranks. Even those who admit his mediocrity will vote straight when the moment of voting comes."

In extending his observation, Bryce notes: "Besides, the ordinary American voter does not object to mediocrity. He has a lower conception of the qualities requisite to make a statesman that those who direct public opinion in Europe have. He likes his candidate to be sensible, vigorous and, above all, what he calls ‘magnetic,’ and does not value, because he sees no need for, originality or profundity, a fine culture or a wide knowledge...It must also be remembered that the merits of a President are one thing and those of a candidate another thing." [Emphasis added]

There have been very few times when America chose to elect a President that embodied the characteristics of the statesman as expressed by Bryce. Early in the history of the Republic, our Presidents were chosen specifically because they were not considered one of the common people. No American voter would have viewed George Washington as much less than a secular deity and his respect was more an awe; no one, not even his friends, would dare shake his hand or approach him to engage in small talk. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and John Quincy Adams mucked it up a bit with the rise of partisan politics but, for the majority of Americans, they were seen as a cut above the average citizen.

It all came tumbling down in the election of 1828. This marked the great turning point of American thought about the qualities sought in a President. Americans were tired of "Statesmen as President" and wanted "a real common man" as their leader. It was the Age of Populism. The election of Andrew Jackson ushered in an lineage of "mediocre" men as President, which continues today. The only qualifications for office of the majority of these men were that they were effectively sold to the electorate by party politicos who spend huge sums on propaganda and palatable kitsch - from the days of hard cider by the keg to the modern age, characterized by slick advertisements and "down home" (and "dumbed-down") rhetoric. A brief review of history may help reinforce my point.

Martin van Buren was "Andrew Jackson’s Brain" and his hand-picked successor. After this insignificant blip, America returned to electing military "heroes": William Henry Harrison ("Tippecanoe and Tyler, too") had the audacity to actually deliver an inaugural address of over 2 hours in the ice and snow and promptly died a month later. "Tyler, too" was dubbed "His Accidency" and was an incompetent, on the ticket merely to give an Eastern block of voters to Harrison and, as President, accomplished little other than avoiding impeachment by a whisker. Tyler was succeeded by James Polk, another President from a Southern state (Tennessee) who, all in all, did an tolerable job (he negotiated Oregon from the British) but was denied a second term because of his invasion of Mexico (Mexican-American War) and his pro-slavery views garnered heavy opposition from the powerful Whig Party, particularly in the Midwest and Northeast.

It was back to the bottomless well of military men and, irony of irony, the Whig Party which opposed Polk’s war in Mexico, nominated General Zachery Taylor, the commander of the invasion force, as their candidate for President and got him elected. Old "Rough and Ready" beat the Black Hawk Indians and humbled the Mexican Army but couldn’t survive cherries and cream at the dedication of the Washington Monument (July 4, 1850) only 16 months into his term. He was succeeded by another dull light, Vice-President Millard Fillmore, widely considered the absolute worst President the U.S. has endured. He was promptly voted out in the next election to be followed on-stage by two complete Dilberts - Franklin Pierce and, then, James Buchanan.

With the exception of Abraham Lincoln (who, in truth, began his term as a thoroughly unqualified man and, through the tribulations of his Presidency, evolved into a true statesman in the Brycean sense), the remainder of the 19^th Century was much of the same for the "highest office in the land". It must be conceded that the 20^th Century did have a smattering of bright lights in the Oval Office but, scantly interspersed, the rare "statesman" was outnumbered by borderline-incompetent "politicians". I will not bore you any further with history. The short trek down memory lane should be sufficient to convince, even to the most ardent skeptic, that Americans are - more often than not - content with mediocre men as its leaders. To our democracy, how one plays the game trumps qualifications to serve most every time.

And, sadly, the tendency shows no sign of changing with the election of 2008. When we have one candidate downing shots of scotch with beer chasers and another (obviously) bowling for the first time - all done with their overpaid strategists’ blessings - all designed to impress upon the electorate their "common-ness", we have an obvious problem with what voters respond to. When bar hopping and bowling can substitute for the desired qualities in a Presidential candidate ("originality or profundity, a fine culture or a wide knowledge"), we have - as a nation - thoroughly and completely lost our vision (not to say, our minds) and, quite possibly, our grasp of the importance of national and global priorities.

Apparently, we are more concerned with whether our candidates are "real people" or "common folk, like us" than the dynamic, visionary and consensus-building statesman we are in such desperate need of. While we may be gradually realizing - thanks to a costly war abroad, our own "culture war" at home (over immigration, gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research and ineradicable racial animosity), compounded by astronomical gas prices and a growing domestic recession - that we are a nation in crisis, we still flock to the hackneyed, cliched rhetoric of years past. Candidates lean dutifully on patriotic fervor, hug the flag yet adroitly sidestep the deep divisions that have fractured this once-great nation of single-minded and proud people.

It does not have to be this way. The days when the answer to: "Which candidate would you most like to have a beer with?" are long gone. We just don’t seem to "get it". Instead of choosing drinking buddies and diligently endeavoring to pick candidates that "speak our language", we should, instead, be seeking candidates who can inspire us with a plan - a "vision", if you will - that can be followed to the stabilization and safety of us all.

It is not a pipedream nor is it impossible. And, make no mistake, I am not a "pie-in-the-sky" idealist. It is the time for Americans to put aside their petty differences and unforgiving partisanship and seek common ground. Perhaps, we could start by agreeing that safety and prosperity for us and our children is "Job One"? If that means modifying our international relationships, then so be it. We must face the harsh, discordant music: We are no longer the nation of the "Jolly Green Giants" walking the world, defeating every enemy and taking whatever we want. We need to abandon gratuitous chest beating and inappropriate flag waving and begin to adopt a policy more closely resembling "realpolitick."

This wonderful German phrase simply means to adopt a theory of diplomacy that is not based on ideology but on practical considerations. The enemy of our enemy is our friend is a cogent example of realpolitick in practice. But, regardless of where this new realism and pragmatism leads us, we should safeguard our people and our nation. Let us begin there. All other options should be open to our national leadership and, rather than listening to (and believing) the snipping of the growing cadre of pundits on both sides whose main purpose is to inflame and divide us, we should be seek a higher ground. Bolstered by a new unity of purpose, I pray we become more patient and supportive as we break new diplomatic and domestic ground. Clearly, the time for squabbling amongst ourselves has long passed.

We need to seek in our leaders - and in ourselves - a new dedication and devotion to the enlightenment of our citizenry. We need to start with the schools and our children but we must not end there. We need to dedicate ourselves to learning about the complex world around us and educate ourselves about the issues confronting us both within the community of nations and within our own land. Abandoning our parochialism, we must adopt a global view for the world grows smaller daily and events half a world away impact us with increasing regularity. It would help to know why they came about and how we should intelligently respond to them.

I am, to say the least, concerned. We need statesmen and we need them desperately. Without these lights to guide us, we will continue as we are, adrift in a lifeboat and fighting over trivialities while our boat fills with water. When all is said and done, paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, we are all Democrats, we are all Republicans and we are, foremost, all Americans.

We need each other now, more than ever.