Who has the character & temperament to be President?

Recently there's been a lot of talk about the temperaments

of our presidential candidates. John McCain's temperament has been criticized

as being hot-headed and mercurial, even "erratic." Barack Obama's temperament,

meanwhile, has been lauded as being unfailingly calm, unflappable. During an

economic crisis, it is claimed, the American people will seek just such a

level-headed approach.

Nonetheless, as I argued in an article for National Review,[1] in

the first debate, it was McCain's temperament that showed to advantage. While

Obama was trying hard to appear presidential, McCain's passionate love for his

country, the soldiers in Iraq,

and the veterans shone forth. After the debate, several commentators expressed

puzzlement by the fact that Obama seemed to agree with McCain a lot, for a

debate.

Of course! This is because he is phlegmatic.

One of the classic four temperaments originally proposed by

Hippocrates (the father of medical science) the phlegmatic temperament is known

for being harmonious, calm and easy-going, diplomatic. At first glance, one

might think even presidential.

McCain, on the other hand, is choleric. Cholerics are passionate, decisive, opinionated,

stubborn, and driven. To paraphrase choleric Franklin Delano Roosevelt, there

is nothing they love so much as a good fight. His

temperament is in part what defines him as a war-hero and Senate maverick. He

is passionate, courageous, and capable of making tough decisions without

pandering to anyone.

Phlegmatic and choleric are just two of the classic four temperaments originally proposed by

Hippocrates, the father of medical science, circa 350 BC. Our books, The

Temperament God Gave You and The Temperament God Gave Your Spouse, explore

the concept of the classic four temperaments in detail. (www.sophiainstitute.com )  In a nutshell, temperament is that part of the

human personality that is innate in us, from birth. It doesn't change much over

time. Though it is not the whole of one's personality, the way we are

"hard-wired" is vitally important.

Cholerics like

McCain and Roosevelt, are classic leaders--passionate, decisive, outspoken, and

persevering. Sanguines are

schmoozers--friendly, talkative, impulsive, and optimistic. One writer

described Bill Clinton as having a "desperate need to make you like him." This

is typical of a sanguine. Melancholics

are intense, noble, pessimistic and, well, melancholy. (Think Abraham Lincoln.)

And phlegmatics (like Obama) are calm under pressure, easy-going, diplomatic.

One's character is, arguably, more important than one's

temperament. If we are talking about character, McCain has certainly proved his

to be courageous, noble, persevering, and strong. We know very little about

Obama's character, other than what we have learned from his two biographies: a

smart man, he seemed lost throughout much of his youth, and only fairly

recently came to focus his attention in an ambitious and swift rise to

political ascendance.

But the media are focusing on temperament rather than character--perhaps

precisely because they believe that this is one area where Obama shines. But

every temperament has both strengths and weaknesses. The flip side of Obama's

even temper is that he is dispassionate, detached, too capable of getting

along. He may acquiesce too easily,

may be too willing to compromise his own (and our country's) values--in the

face of very real threats. Dreams from My Father reveals Obama's temperament

as being, on many occasions, unwilling to confront difficult situations and

instead, content to retreat in silence. In one telling interchange, a fellow

organizer confronts Obama:

            "Do you mind if I ask you

something, Barack?"

            "No, go ahead."

            "Why are you here? Doing

this work, I mean."

            "For the glamour."

            "No, I'm serious. You said

yourself you don't need this job. And you're not very religious, are you?"

            "Well..."

            "So why do you do it?

That's why Will and I do this, you know. Because it's part of our faith. But

with you, I don't- "[2]

After his initial flippant response ("for the glamour"), Obama never really

answers this question. He leaves it hanging in the air. "I don't think our

reasons are all that different," he finally offers-a non-answer, a kowtow to

both sides, a half-hearted appeal to faith without any real substance. Sort of

like his appeal to "change."

The danger for phlegmatics is that they may agree at all costs, even to the

point of sacrificing their own principles. Obama quit his church of twenty

years when it proved too big a negative for his campaign. Either Obama

sacrificed his own principles for the sake of the election, or he had never

agreed with Jeremiah Wright in the first place, and had been compromising his own

principles for twenty years!  Either way,

one questions his conviction.

McCain, on the other hand, has both the temperament and the character to do what

is necessary to see this country through our present financial crisis--as well

as the moral crisis of abortion, the threat of terrorism, and the oppression of

peoples around the world.

 "[Obama] is the least angry man," praises

Joe Klein, in a recent article in Time magazine. [3] That

may be. But there is a time and a place for righteous

anger.

Which candidate has the moral fiber, the strength of character, the

conviction and, yes, the strong-willed temperament necessary to take on the

true crises of our time?

[1] Bennett,

"It's a Matter of Temperament." www.nationalreview.com

[2] Barack

Obama, Dreams from My Father. New

York: Three Rivers Press, 1995. pp 176-179.

[3] Joe

Klein, "Crisis Management." Time. vol. 172, no. 15, 2008.