The Uneven Quality of Presidents

With all the hand wringing over the current field of GOP candidates for the 2012 presidential nomination, it's tempting to think this is new. That we're facing, for the first time ever, the prospect of a less-than-optimal president replacing an even worse one.

However, as I've written in earlier posts, ever since I voted in my first presidential election, in 1976, for Carter, I've rarely felt I was voting for the best candidate in the nation. Merely the better or best one on the ballot.

I really thought Carter could do the job, and was a worthy candidate. But, of course, he failed. In the next election, I didn't trust Reagan's intellect, so I voted for Anderson, who I didn't think was exactly presidential, but a safer choice than the other two.

I felt comfortable voting to re-elect Reagan, but didn't really think Bush senior, Dole, or Bush the younger were the best the party could have offered. Nor was I thrilled with McCain. He was cranky and over the hill.

Recalling the line of presidents from my youth, I don't think I'd have been particularly thrilled by any of the candidates except perhaps JFK, and probably Goldwater.

But, generally speaking, it's not like the US has had a steady succession of Washingtons and Lincolns for the past 50 or 100 years.

So, regardless of how much the left denigrates Perry, Romney or Bachmann, those candidates, along with Cain, Santorum, even Gingrich, are really no different in caliber than many of those who have held the office they seek.

Don't despair over the quality of the GOP candidate field. It's really no better, nor worse, than we've seen for decades.