Does the President’s Character Matter?
The first five to seven seconds within meeting someone determines the first impression, the imprint that they will leave on you forever. A person’s character is important; it reveals their nature, moral compass, and probable actions. When the question of whether the president’s character matters arises, it should not be taken lightly. Character alone says a lot about a person, evidently, the president is not just any person. How imperative is the identity of a president? As the highest power-vested position in the country the president’s character does matter. Character determines a person’s actions and decisions. It’s no question that the president has a great amount of power, and with great power …show more content…
President Roosevelt is an iconic figure in American history. His light hearted, genuine, charismatic character made a tremendous mark during his presidency. He won the hearts and votes of the majority of Americans in his time. In order to be president you had to win the people over, you had to be charismatic. As psychology professor of UC Davis Dean Simonton says “you actually had to be interesting, you really couldn’t be boring” , in order to be president you had to impress the public and catch their attention. FDR’s character hit a wide spectrum. From having the qualities of being an arguably reasonable president to his infamous fireside chats, everyone loved him. His approachable and pleasant character defined him as a president.FDR’s character played a role in his actions and choices, and that affected America as a whole. Sure, he wasn’t a genius or had super powers but his character is what compelled others, what made him most …show more content…
Psychologist Simonton states that character does not necessarily make you better at decision making or more capable of steering the country in the right direction; there is no direct correlation. Simonton also highlights that “There 's nothing about being a charismatic president that makes you more effective as a problem solver.”. Before FDR, there were two presidents portrayed by current scientists as really alluring individuals: Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt. Following came Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan and Clinton but in a much shorter timeframe. He draws a connection in retrospect to former presidents, pointing out that their characters were far deviated from characters of more recent presidents, and they did just fine fulfilling their duties. He says that there is no correlating pattern of alluring character to good presidencies. This allusion conveys that the aspect of character does not correlate to being an effective president. Despite this, character is undeniably effective in itself. Simonton states that “All that charisma does is enable you to influence people.” . A president has to have the capability of influencing people. Thus, character does
The first five to seven seconds within meeting someone determines the first impression, the imprint that they will leave on you forever. A person’s character is important; it reveals their nature, moral compass, and probable actions. When the question of whether the president’s character matters arises, it should not be taken lightly. Character alone says a lot about a person, evidently, the president is not just any person. How imperative is the identity of a president? As the highest power-vested position in the country the president’s character does matter. Character determines a person’s actions and decisions. It’s no question that the president has a great amount of power, and with great power …show more content…
President Roosevelt is an iconic figure in American history. His light hearted, genuine, charismatic character made a tremendous mark during his presidency. He won the hearts and votes of the majority of Americans in his time. In order to be president you had to win the people over, you had to be charismatic. As psychology professor of UC Davis Dean Simonton says “you actually had to be interesting, you really couldn’t be boring” , in order to be president you had to impress the public and catch their attention. FDR’s character hit a wide spectrum. From having the qualities of being an arguably reasonable president to his infamous fireside chats, everyone loved him. His approachable and pleasant character defined him as a president.FDR’s character played a role in his actions and choices, and that affected America as a whole. Sure, he wasn’t a genius or had super powers but his character is what compelled others, what made him most …show more content…
Psychologist Simonton states that character does not necessarily make you better at decision making or more capable of steering the country in the right direction; there is no direct correlation. Simonton also highlights that “There 's nothing about being a charismatic president that makes you more effective as a problem solver.”. Before FDR, there were two presidents portrayed by current scientists as really alluring individuals: Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt. Following came Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan and Clinton but in a much shorter timeframe. He draws a connection in retrospect to former presidents, pointing out that their characters were far deviated from characters of more recent presidents, and they did just fine fulfilling their duties. He says that there is no correlating pattern of alluring character to good presidencies. This allusion conveys that the aspect of character does not correlate to being an effective president. Despite this, character is undeniably effective in itself. Simonton states that “All that charisma does is enable you to influence people.” . A president has to have the capability of influencing people. Thus, character does