Patton: Predicting Presidential Success

Would Donald Trump be a success as president? How about Hillary Clinton?

Some time ago (1972), James David Barber wrote a book entitled Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House. Barber attempted to show how certain dimensions of presidential personality critically affect success or failure of a president.

He presents a theory which is really pretty simple. Presidents vary along two critical dimensions - activity (active or passive) and disposition (positive or negative). By combining these two dimensions, Barber ends up with four presidential personality types: (a) passive - negative, (b) passive - positive, (c) active- negative and (d) active - positive. Of the four categories, only active-positives prove to be successful presidents.

The surprising thing about this simple theory is that it works. Most theories don't. Nature is a wily, complex competitor and routinely confounds our misguided explanations.

Who would Barber characterize as a passive-negative president? "Silent Cal" Coolidge served grudgingly out of a sense of duty, doing as little as possible ("I have never been hurt by what I have not said.") What about passive-positives? Warren Harding, a handsome, amiable man was unable to say no to his friends and was eventually undone by them.

Active-negative presidents work hard and actively pursue policies while they are in office. But they are rigid and very concerned about being right. For reasons of pride, they stubbornly cling to failing policies which eventually destroy their presidencies. Richard Nixon (his defense of executive privilege during the Watergate scandal) and Lyndon Johnson (his single-minded escalation of the Vietnam War) are examples.

By comparison, active-positive presidents enjoy being president, actively promote their ideas, but are not wedded to them, so they are flexible and willing to change when necessary. Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried one thing after another in his effort to end the Great Depression.

What about our current crop of presidential candidates - Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders? To what categories do they belong? I see no passive-negatives among them. The modern world is too fast-paced and fraught with challenges for a passive-negative to succeed.

What about passive-positives? Donald Trump might well belong here. He is egotistical , narcissistic and thoroughly enjoys the limelight. He proposes many unconventional ideas, but never describes them in detail. Over time, Trump often winds up on different sides of an issue. He is definitely not a policy wonk, seemingly being more interested in the attention his proposals bring him than in having them "shovel ready" for immediate execution.

What about Trump's successes as a business man? What about them? There's a difference which voters tend to overlook between running a business and running a government. Herbert Hoover, a professional mining engineer, failed as a president. And Trump has had about as many business failures as he has had successes.

That brings us to active-negatives. Ted Cruz fits easily into the active - negative slot. He has a well-developed, arch-conservative political philosophy which he will not modify. Renee Graham writes in the Boston Globe (2/14/16), "Unlike Trump, whose political viewpoints are as unsteady as a screen door in a hurricane, Cruz doesn't waver."

Bernie Sanders also qualifies as an active - negative. Throughout his long congressional and senatorial career as a socialist, Sanders has steadfastly and single-mindedly clung to ideas on the far left of the Democratic political spectrum. According to Patrick Healey of the New York Times (4/16/2016), "The tool he uses is his intensity and his belief that, on the major issues he cares about, there is only one right answer," Smith said. "And it is his."

That leaves us with the active-positive category, the one that according to Barber produces successful presidents. For more than two decades, Hillary Clinton has been actively promoting governmental change, starting with the Child Health Security Act of 1993. But her ideas are not frozen in time, and like a good active-positive will form alliances and compromise to reach a goal. Those traits make for an instructive comparison with Bernie Sanders.

Here are two examples of Sanders' uncompromising stands versus Clinton's flexibility. Whereas Sanders relentlessly demands a $15 minimum wage, Clinton, the pragmatic progressive, who is focused on results, will settle for $12, then strive for $15 as the political climate becomes more favorable. Sanders wants to throw out Obama's Affordable Care Act and start all over with a single payer plan similar to Medicare. Clinton will not risk losing expanded health care entirely by totally eliminating Obamacare. Rather, she would work to amend and upgrade the Affordable Care Act.

And that leaves us with John Kasich. Kasich is a little like Joe Biden in that he is prone to saying unexpected and, well, goofy things. When asked for his views on preventing sexual assault, Kasich replied, "It's not a good idea for young women ('coeds' he calls them. Think 1950s.) to drink alcohol at parties." That is indeed a good idea, but not really a comprehensive program.

Yet, the affable Kasich is positive in outlook and, as governor, improved Ohio's economic climate. He is approachable and willing to compromise. Kasich supported restricting public employee unions in Ohio. When his proposed changes were thoroughly rejected by the voters, Kasich replied mildly that he was wrong. How often do politicians do that?

So there you have it. My guesses are that Donald Trump is passive-positive; Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders are active-negative; and Hillary Clinton and John Kasich are active-positive. What do you think?

Gary Patton is the author of two books, Selling Mt. Washington, a political satire, and Outtastatahs: Newcomers' Adventures in New Hampshire, a work of regional humor.