Outlook: A Presidential Job Description

To Meet Expectations, Next Commander in Chief Will Need Lots of Help

"A simple and deceptively tricky question: What does a president do? If you had to put together the Help Wanted ad for the position of chief executive, what would you write? Something like: 'CEO needed to supervise 3 million employees. Must be at least 35, native-born, willing to work at home. Spectacular public failures likely.' ... 'There's endless months of debating about this job, and almost no public discussion of what the job is,' Robert Caro, a Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer now working on his fourth volume about Lyndon Johnson, told me last week."

Washington Post reporter and achenblogger Joel Achenbach was online Monday, April 28 at 3 p.m. ET to discuss his Outlook article about the schedules, duties and decisions the eventual winner of this year's presidential race will face.

The transcript follows.

Archive: Transcripts of discussions with Outlook article authors

____________________

Joel Achenbach: Hello, Americans!

I am in New Jersey and just wandered into this here chat auditorium and will get to your questions forthwith.

_______________________

Seattle: My 16-year-old son says the answer is "run up massive deficits in my name." Which, given that he's only known incompetents since 2000, is probably the most accurate answer. But what do they lie to us about doing? That's the question...

Joel Achenbach: Have you pointed out to your son that he will probably wind up as some kind of dot-com nanotech tycoon and should stop whining?

_______________________

Montgomery, Ala.: Great article, Joel -- thank you. Have any recent presidents included alcohol consumption in their daily ritual to help cope with the tremendous strain of the job and relieve stress? Is it a coincidence that two recent teetotalers -- Carter and Bush II -- weren't very successful?

Joel Achenbach: Clinton also didn't drink -- allergic. That's why Hillary knocks 'em back, to show that she's a different Clinton.

I think presidents have various tricks for coping with stress, and the current one is an exercise nut, really into the mountain bike. Carter, you recall, was a jogger, which led to the infamous slumping jogger photo. Clinton, I'm told, was overwhelmed by a too tightly packed schedule and they finally realized that he needed large blocks of unstructured time in the afternoon. As for how he relieved his stress ... next question...

_______________________

Seattle: Interesting article, but how do you test the candidates' readiness? How do you test a candidate's mental and physical stamina in such an environment without making the campaigning even more inane and hectic?

Joel Achenbach: There's an argument that a campaign, with its insanity, its helter-skelter quality and endlessness and exhaustiveness (is that word?), is a proxy for a presidency. I don't think so. Every single person I interviewed for this piece made the point, in one way or another, that the presidency is different from any other job. And obviously different from being a U.S. senator.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: "Worst of all is when a president makes a bad decision -- and sticks with it." True, but a president sticking to a good decision when criticized by others is a hero. How do you tell the difference? If the choice is a good path and a bad path, it is easy -- but what do you do when the decision is for something bad or something much worse? What if events in Iraq were not the worst path? How do you evaluate that situation? One type mistake is to have bad data and think it good; another type is to have good data and think it bad.

Joel Achenbach: Notice how I decided not to litigate the entire Iraq question in the article. In case no one noticed, the article barely scratched the surface of the topic. It's worth a book, or two books, but I had about 50 inches and a few days to report and write it. That said, I think David Frum makes an interesting point, about presidents overreacting to the perceived failures of their predecessors. Frum (who worked for Bush) suggests that he tried too hard to be decisive and resolute -- and one might suspect strongly that history will judge him very harshly for many of the decisions involving Iraq.

_______________________

Los Angeles: Having just read your story on "What does the President do all day ?" I'm struck by one of the most ignored points that could be discussed in the media: Whom do these candidates plan to surround themselves with? We all know the job's far bigger than the person who'll win it, so why then does "inexperience" (in that office) count as a talking point? Surely it must be more important to discuss the trends shown by whom the candidates have already shown they've surrounded themselves with, the judgment implied in choosing the best and steadiest of the best. That takes a particular wisdom and maturity, and convinces me that the "inexperienced" candidate, Obama, has the "old soul" needed to make the best choices.

Joel Achenbach: Great question. Should be a story. How many of Clinton I's White House staff would be in the Clinton II White House? Who is Obama's alter ego, who would have his ear? (Austan Goolsbee?) Would McCain really rely on counsel from Norman Podhoretz?

_______________________

Boca Raton, Fla.: At least now we can look back and see how all the presidents have defined the job and performed it. George Washington didn't have any precedent for his presidency; what do you think he would say about the role of the president, and what qualifications would he value highest in a candidate for the office?

Joel Achenbach: Washington believed that someone had to be above the fray, and he'd be disappointed to see that presidents today are foremost political animals who lead a party. He'd be shocked by the partisanship. There weren't really parties in his day, though they were incipient with Jefferson and Hamilton, especially in his second term. George Washington did have one qualification in addition to eight years running the Continental Army: He was the most respected person in the country by far, the only man people plausibly could rally around. And it helped that he'd personally seen a lot of the country and, for example, grasped the significance of the trans-Appalachian West.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Where's the balance between a person who puts the needs of the country ahead of him or herself, and the self-promoting narcissist who actually will bother to run for president?

Joel Achenbach: Anyone who runs for president has to have ambition and drive at a level that always will have a whiff of narcissism (or maybe something more along the lines of megalomania), but I think there are also genuine public servants who realize they can do the job and the time is right and they have support from friends and allies.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: Who determines a president's schedule? It seems that these people must be tremendously powerful, as they determine who meets with the president.

Joel Achenbach: Ultimately that's another decision the president has to make: he or she has to say yes or no on countless items, including should he (yes, no) meet with X, Y, Z. But I'm pretty sure the schedule is a committee job, even if there's titularly a scheduler (you also have the advance team, and of course the chief of staff, etc., who sign off on such things).

_______________________

Concord, Mass.: How does a president make an informed and useful decision about unusual threats that fall outside of war and poverty? I am thinking of global warming as an example. This problem will require some out-of-the-box thinking that will challenge the country's way of life, its preconceptions, even its sovereignty. How do we know if a candidate can sort through the options, choose a non-politically expedient one and make it stick?

Joel Achenbach: We need presidents who are quick studies, judicious, not prone to being surrounded by yes-persons, someone who can be comfortable outside the bubble, outside the echo chamber. A president has to be smart. Must listen. Must ask good questions. I think showing resolve and clear direction are important, so long as a president retains some ability to doubt his or her judgment and remain flexible when plans do not survive contact with reality.

_______________________

Annandale, Va.: Thanks, Joel, for your timely attention to an issue that warrants a whole series. Fascinating to read how the executive has expanded from a staff of one to a staff of 3,000. That sounds bloated even to a big-government Democrat like me. Was it driven by the tech revolution and the expansion of the economy?

Joel Achenbach: The Great Depression, and then World War II. Periodically presidents make a big show of cutting the "White House staff" (Clinton in '93), but often they're just eliminating some of the agencies that are within the umbrella of the Executive Office of the President but aren't part of the smaller (currently about 400 staffers) White House Office.

_______________________

Seattle: Isn't the question something of a blank slate? A president does what they feel needs to be done; what they actually do flows from that. Bill Clinton was a policy wonk and was expected to get involved; Bush isn't. Shouldn't the question focus more on how they plan to use their time specifically?

Joel Achenbach: The premise of the story is that we focus so much on how candidates campaign, on strategies, polls, electoral college maps, etc., that we ought to remember that this is a job someone is essentially applying for -- and I noticed, by the way, that Howard Dean said (according to a news report I heard on the radio) that the Democratic superdelegates should vote for the candidate who is "most electable." That really jumped out at me, because arguably they should vote for the person who would make the best president. But maybe that's naive -- it's moot if you don't get the W in November, Dean probably would answer.

I assumed when I wrote the story that my various expert sources would talk a lot about public powers of persuasion being crucial in a presidency. Oddly enough, they de-emphasized that and focused more on just the day-to-day decisiveness and ability to work through complicated issues.

_______________________

Massachusetts: In the past, rather than qualifications, we have focused on disqualifications. The list is rather vague and unwritten, but which of the following would still be considered a deal-breaker: marital infidelity and/or divorce, previous illegal drug use, prescription use of mood altering (anti-depression for instance) drugs, employment (knowingly or unknowingly) of an illegal immigrant, a non-Christian faith (including atheism, agnosticism or non-monotheistic faith), homosexuality or bisexuality, polyamory, white-collar criminal conviction or violent crime conviction? Are there any other surefire candidacy killers? I just want to know how far I can go and remain viable.

Joel Achenbach: This question is from Teddy, isn't it.

I would say if you'd done all those things on your list you may be in a jam.

Voters are probably able to 'work around" certain issues (such as past infidelity) but a deal-breaker would be anything in recent months/years that made voters feel that the person was either fundamentally dishonest or just somehow too repulsive to be tolerated. Like, for example, claiming that "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da " was the best Beatles song. Deal-breaker.

_______________________

Massachusetts:"And it helped that he'd personally seen a lot of the country and, for example, grasped the significance of the trans-Appalachian West." Gee, if only somebody had written a book about those experiences [place plug here].

Joel Achenbach: It wouldn't sell, trust me.

_______________________

Re: Readiness: I agree that campaign are no proxy for the real thing, especially given that the level of activity a campaigner undertakes is largely voluntary, at their own pace, and scrutinized at a different level than the real thing (ironically, the real thing is more about the big picture than the small things). So, the question still remains to be answered: How do you test readiness?

Joel Achenbach: Good question, and I don't know the answer other than: You look for examples in the person's life where he or she had to handle a very difficult task with skill and verve and decisiveness.

_______________________

Oslo, Norway: I am wondering how the president combines the tasks of simply running the government and initiating new policy or introducing reforms. I am sure any president could fill his term just administering the government. (Could that end up making the speaker of the house a de facto prime minister?) How does the relationship between the president and the Congress work on government reform? How separating is the separation of powers in that regard? After all, the Congress has to pass it, but the president must sign it, so I suppose the teamwork has to be there to some extent.

Joel Achenbach: Great question from Norway, and something I should have mentioned in the story: The presidency since FDR has been more of an initiator of legislation. As someone put it to me, he went from being the batter to being the pitcher. Do Norwegians understand that metaphor?

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: We often hear about the importance of executive experience (haven't elected a senator since JFK, etc.), but how different are the daily interactions for a president, senator and governor? They all have staffs they rely on; governors and the president also have administrative officials and department heads, but how much oversight and/or interaction is there?

Joel Achenbach: Governors always claim that their executive experience gives them an edge over senators, but note the highly varying competence of the recent rash of governors who served as president. LBJ was a great administrator in many ways, having been not just a senator but the Senate Majority Leader. I haven't really answered your question, but that's because it's kind of a tough one.

_______________________

Joel Achenbach: And I need coffee.

_______________________

Restin' in Reston, Va.: Joel, is there a job or position that you think would best prepare someone to be an effective president of the United States? Speaker of the House? Homemaker? Tightrope Walker/Trapeze Artist? CEO? Theoretical Physicist? X-Games Athlete? Auctioneer?

Joel Achenbach: College president. A great college president has to juggle all kinds of relationships -- with the faculty (usually he/she is a faculty member), the administration (provost, deans, etc.), the students, and of course the alums who give the money.

But then, I'm biased, because I'm currently at Princeton where the president went on to become governor and then U.S. president (Wilson).

_______________________

Richardson, Texas: Do you feel Jimmy Carter might be an exceptional president if he became commander-in-chief tomorrow? For years, I've felt he was too inexperienced when he took office after only one term as governor of Georgia. Now, with the ability to look back at his mistakes, I believe Carter could be a fine president -- except, of course, for his age. In contrast, it seems many Americans are frustrated by George Bush's inability to recognize or admit his mistakes.

Joel Achenbach: Now there's a challenging job for a campaign strategist -- getting to 270 with the gentleman from Plains, Ga. I don't think so.

_______________________

Law Library: Well, the court always could start enforcing the nondelegation doctrine and strip power from all these administrative agencies. I really need to get back to studying Constitutional law.

Joel Achenbach: Acquaint us with the nondelegation doctrine -- is that the business in the Constitution about all powers not expressly given to the central government being reserved for the states? The part everyone ignores?

_______________________

Columbia, Md.: Mr. Achenbach, Thanks for taking my question. As the elected president will surround himself with staff members and cabinet secretaries in the tight daily schedule you described in the article, how much time in a day do you think is left to the president for critical thinking and making decisions?

Joel Achenbach: I think it was Leon Panetta who told me that the gravest risk for a president is that he'll lose his humanity -- and by that he meant that the president could become cut off from, isolated from, the people he serves.

About decision-making: I think there are countless people who chew through the options (staffers, cabinet members, congresspersons, factions, pundits, etc.) and it is the president's job to be the toggle, the switch, the go/no-go -- what Bush, in his memorably goofy phrase, called The Decider. He's the tiebreaker. There are always powerful people, allies, staffers, who want a different result. The president's grave responsibility to make that call -- and that's why it's a really, really important job that you don't want to give to someone with oatmeal for brains.

_______________________

Washington: Wouldn't you agree that just the experience of going through a campaign and running your campaign for two years is experience enough to be president?

Joel Achenbach: No.

_______________________

Joel Achenbach: But maybe I'm setting a high standard.

My friend David Von Drehle had a really nice piece in Time on the importance of experience and he also touched on the "decisiveness" issue. And he made the point that there's no experience that parallels being president.

_______________________

Herndon, Va.: Mr. A: As usual, a great article by you. Current contenders for chief executive should look on the bright side -- viewing "John Adams" on HBO was a good reminder that in those days, even being president couldn't keep all your teeth from falling out, nor prevent death from diseases which are curable easily today.

Joel Achenbach: Plus John Adams had to move to Washington in 1800 when there weren't any decent coffee shops.

No Java House, nothin'.

_______________________

Honolulu: Given the enormity of stress, pressure and public flogging that comes with the job of president, why would anyone want the job? What drives people to apply for this office? Power? Just seems crazy to me.

Joel Achenbach: That's another story, on ambition and presidential personality, and the rats in the belly. I don't think it's crazy, necessarily, but you see how badly you have to want it. The person who wants it most usually wins it -- which is why Hillary still has a chance, albeit a slim one.

_______________________

Southwest Washington: Which of the candidates do you think has demonstrated the best decision-making skills? The worst?

Joel Achenbach: Now that's the important question. And that's also a follow-up article, potentially. I haven't done enough reporting to weigh in on that.

_______________________

St. Simons Island, Ga.: A professor, at Duke, I believe, has written a book (with periodic updates) on the temperaments of the presidents, and ranked them, with Franklin Roosevelt (among others) ranked in the top tier. The top tier shared one very important trait, which is that they loved the job. Biographies of Roosevelt confirm his total pleasure in being the president and being with others (Churchill most significantly) who shared this trait.

By contrast (a whopping contrast), Bush doesn't seem to much enjoy the job, or the people who have similar responsibilities. Other than his ill-fated friendship with Putin, I can't think of any other world leader with whom Bush has developed a close relationship. Maybe it's because, as with his job, he doesn't like them.

Joel Achenbach: Interesting point. I'm not sure Lincoln was savoring every minute of the gig, though. But you're probably correct, that there's some correlation between presidential joy and effervescence and effectiveness as a leader. Look at Nixon -- he probably loved parts of the job but he got caught up in his paranoid view of the world and everything gradually turn rancid around him.

_______________________

Massachusetts: This was a great article, and deserves a Pulitzer Prize. I hear they give those out at The Post like peewee league soccer participation trophies, right?

Joel Achenbach: Dang straight. I want the Gold Medal.

_______________________

On Presidents and Relaxation: Carter also tried fishing as relaxation, until a killer rabbit with great huge, white fangs tried to enter his boat and he had to whack it with an oar. I think he switched to pinochle shortly thereafter.

Joel Achenbach: Pinochle is more dangerous than you realize, though. Risks always are underreported.

_______________________

Waldorf, Md.: Other Presidential deal-breakers are pets. If someone has a dog or cat, fine -- but if Sen. Obama kept hermit crabs or Sen. McCain had an iguana, deal-breaker, no?

washingtonpost.com: "Senator John McCain, perhaps the most colorful character in the early race, certainly has the most colorful menagerie. The McCain family shelters four cats, three dogs -- two mini-Dobermans and a springer spaniel -- three parakeets, two snakes, one rabbit, one turtle, one hamster, one mouse, one iguana, one gecko and 13 fish. In summer 2000, the family also cared for one orphan jackrabbit and one iguana egg (courtesy of the McCain iguana, Henrietta)." ( infoplease, Feb. 4, 2000)

Joel Achenbach: I think McCain should avoid having, say, a "death adder" as a pet, or any scorpions.

_______________________

Joel Achenbach: I gotta scram. ... Thanks for all the great questions. Tune in to the Achenblog for more discussion on what presidents do (amid the digressions, of course). Cheers.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.