Matt Lauer has a critical determination of what qualifies for being a “good President”, I think it’s actually one (of many) good criteria.
A guest host on the Piers Morgan Show interviewed Matt Lauer, touching the fabric of “professional” politics (and the candidates themselves) only a little bit.
Matt Lauer commented about the Great Recession, and the time that has passed since the Collapse of 2008. He said that he has been through a lot, but this is the first time that he has personally known people who have lost their jobs, family members and close friends. He said something to effect that this is a sentiment, reflected in a lot of people.
His qualification for the Presidency: “Do they get ‘it’?”
What is this ‘it’ we are supposed to ‘get’? What Matt Lauer is referring to is a progressive sense of identification.
Does the candidate for President understand the fundamental struggle of the average American? Does he understand enough struggle to know what their fundamental interests and important issues are?
And more than just for the Presidency, what about all types of civil servants? Do our Senators understand the American condition? Does the Congressmen understand the human condition, the status, state, and attitude of their citizen-constituency?
This is definitely a rationalist argument. It implies the notion of needing a minimum sense of collateral information in order to qualify for some kind of idealized definition of competence. It can therefore function like a rationalist qualification for the Presidency, or for some such office of civil servitude. And this sort of use of function correlates to a sense of pragmatism, or instrumentalism. But it is also important to recognize that this single qualification isn’t taken to be the whole of what makes good governance. It is but one example of an in depth consideration of the quality of mind behind a person that says they have what it takes to lead America as being the highest executive. There are many other sort of considerations of what can qualify for good governance; this is de facto obvious due to the very nature of what is being looked for - it fundamentally varies from person to person.
What do YOU think is a just qualification?