Off-the-Job Training
[Can't tell the difference between politics and policy? Need personal advice of a political nature -- or vice versa? Send your question to Stumped. Questions may be edited.]
Dear Stumped,
You've written about what candidates read and what that says about them. But what about where they vacation? It's summer, primaries are over, time to take a break. What's a respectable vacation these days for an aspiring president?
-- Terrence Howard
Dear Terrence,
This is a tricky one. Even in the real world, people can be awfully judgmental of one's vacation choices. "Did you hear Jones climbed Mount Everest on his break?" has a little more cachet around the office water cooler than "Did you hear Jones spent his vacation playing the slots in Atlantic City?" or "Did you hear Jones scammed one of those free timeshare-pitch vacations in Fort Lauderdale?" Meanwhile, generally accepted office cultural norms inoculate wholesome vacations designed around children from any criticism, and any vacation time devoted to visiting elderly parents gets you obligatory sympathy points from co-workers.
For high-profile politicians operating in a fishbowl, vacations are perilous undertakings, as they reveal a lot about the real persona behind the usually scripted public performer. Remember how people used to take Bill Clinton to task for borrowing rich friends' vacation homes on Martha's Vineyard? Tony Blair also suffered for that habit. And remember the grief John Kerry took four years ago for windsurfing?
The Clintons were so scarred by the criticism of their vacation habits that Dick Morris famously conducted polling for them on an ideal presidential vacation leading up to his 1996 re-election campaign. Survey said: Camping! Off the First Family went to pitch a tent. I almost felt sorry for the Clintons back then, and not only because I appreciate a hot shower and firm bed while on break. Americans relish the idea that you needn't be very wealthy to become president, but then we seemed to hold it against Clinton that he didn't have his own spread in Hyannisport, Santa Barbara, Kennebunkport or even Crawford. Was he supposed to crash at a Days Inn?
I think we secretly do want our presidents to be extraordinarily wealthy on the FDR/JFK model, as money in the bank can imbue presidents with an aura of independence and a dash of regal glamor. The wealth can backfire, however, as John Kerry learned, if it reinforces personality-based perceptions that a politician is out of touch or haughty.
So there's no one-size-fits-all ideal vacation. For Obama, family vacations with his young daughters will reinforce his youthfulness. Camping or beach trips are fine, but he should avoid the temptation to stay at the lavish homes of rich friends. (Especially these days -- who knows where those preferential Countrywide mortgages lurk?) He needs to take vacations that white, blue-collar Hillary voters in Ohio will approve. A camping trip, say, combined with a tour of Civil War battlefields, could highlight his commitment to his young family and burnish his patriotic credentials.
If John McCain becomes president, his ranch in Sedona, Ariz., will provide a suitable and scenic western White House. The senator reportedly enjoys hitting the craps tables in Vegas (though locals grouse about his push to ban betting on collegiate sports). Gambling is not a traditional presidential leisure activity, for obvious reasons, but maybe this summer McCain could swing though Vegas for a session of craps and late-night clubbing. An appreciation of Sin City would make McCain more appealing to independents tired of Republican moralism, and quiet talk of the senator's old age. And if he manages to keep his cool when rolling those nasty sevens, he might even help reassure voters that he has conquered his notorious temper.
---
In response to last week's column about presidential candidates and their reading habits, a lot of comments offered Obama and McCain interesting suggestions. Most of the non-fiction choices fell squarely in the cautionary-tale category: Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August," Jared Diamond's "The Collapse," Thomas Malthus's "An Essay on the Principle of Population" (which may be making a comeback with soaring commodity prices). Some of the cautionary tales were more focused on the Middle East, aimed at curbing Western hubris in the region. Among the books mentioned: "Defeat: Why America and Britain lost Iraq" by Jonathan Steele and Paul Bowles' "The Sheltering Sky."
Surprisingly, George Eliot's Victorian novel "Middlemarch" -- one of those novels I started reading at a girlfriend's urging years ago and may never have finished, I can't remember -- was suggested by not one, but two, readers. The novel, subtitled "A Study of Provincial Life," is hardly an obvious choice for presidential candidates (unless the intent is to keep them really, really busy). What I remember about the book, besides its daunting length, is that the underappreciated idealistic protagonist, Dorothea, deserved better, and that the whole town was obsessed with class and real estate. Come to think of it, that does sound relevant today...
By Andres Martinez |
June 17, 2008; 12:00 AM ET
Previous: Were the Media Ever Nice to Clinton? |
Next: Don't Blame the Economy on the War
Posted by: commonsense | June 20, 2008 2:22 AM
How about both of them spending some time on the West Bank in Ramallah and Bethlehem so that they can see what is really going on there. Even just looking at some photographs of those places on the Internet would give them a more realistic appreciation of the Israeli and Palestinian points of view.
Posted by: Annette O'Sullivan | June 17, 2008 6:21 PM
Really, why should any of us care where our presidents or presidential candidates take vacations? Do my fellow citizens really vote for someone based on where he does or doesn't vacation? If we trust these guys to lead the proverbial "free world", can't we let them vacation wherever the heck they want? Seriously, let's focus on something important - like how quickly each of them will end our shameful excursion into Iraq.
Posted by: James Arth | June 17, 2008 5:58 PM
Together or separately?
Posted by: Richard J Mullin | June 17, 2008 1:02 PM
McCain should vacation in San Francisco's tenderloin.
ObamA in "the OC"
see new worlds.
Posted by: macdoodle | June 17, 2008 12:59 PM
Since he seems to be so enamored with the place McCain should spend a month at Guantanamo, wearing the orange PJs and mixing with the other guests of the US government. They could swap war stories and he could tell them about the bad old days at the Hanoi Hilton.
Posted by: Dennis15 | June 17, 2008 12:21 PM
Perhaps Senators Obama and McCain can spend their vacations (together) camped out at a field near a gas station in the middle of Pennsylvania?
Or maybe take up residence (together, again) in one of the millions of foreclosed homes in America due to subprime mortgages.
Or, last but not least, simply rent an RV (without gas) and park on the National Mall. I'm sure that will bring out many voters who would love to give them a piece of their mind.
Posted by: Captain John | June 17, 2008 11:33 AM
Man, I agree. Both candidates need to show they are in control of their lives and their schedules and are not letting their work control them. Potential commanders in chief need to set some limits. The trouble is that McCain has already had a chance to rest up and take time off, so he has an advantage there.
I think the Obama family definitely needs more than a partial weekend off in Chicago. My hope has been that they will have some beach time in Hawaii near that speech he's hoping to give near the Punchbowl Cemetery. That way they can also see his grandmother, who can't travel off the island--this adds the elderly relative points you mentioned, plus it would be good for all of them.
More generally, it was abundantly clear during the Pennsylvania primary run-up that the Virgin Islands vacation was perfect for the Obamas. He grew up on an island! Clearly, he needs the beach. If he becomes president, I hope he will go often to the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii. (I don't know as much about Guam's tourism industry or lack thereof.) The trouble, as you say, is that he is not a rich person with a big island estate, so he will either have to rent a suite at an upscale hotel (pretty much what happened at the Virgin Islands) or stay with a friend. We will have to think who might have a nice place in one of those locations. Maybe Jimmy Buffett?
Posted by: Fairfax Voter | June 17, 2008 10:57 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
THE POLICIES OF THE PAST HAVE TOTALLY FAILED---IT'S TIME TO DRILL FOR OIL...
DEMOCRATS ARE HOLDING BACK AMERICA!!!!!!!
It needs to keep being said because it's the truth. Democrats in congress have put us in this situation that we are in. The policies of the past of not drilling for oil, not becoming energy independent, not building refineries, not building nuclear power plants---ALL THESE POLICIES HAVE FAILED MISERABLY.
The democrats in Congress continue to prevent us from becoming energy independent. We have hundreds of years of oil in our own country--it's been verified-it's not even debatable.
We need to STOP the environmental special interest groups that continue to ruin our economy and influence democrats in Congress to vote against "energy independence". Our dependence upon foreign oil is directly due to the failed policies of democrat lawmakers.
It's time to reverse the curse of the democrats...
GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST LIE SINCE "THE WORLD IS FLAT"--PROPAGATORS WERE AROUND
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659