The Problems of Presidential Pop Psychology

Character: America's Search for Leadership

By Gail Sheehy

303 pp.

William Morrow, $17.95

IS it really relevant to the American voter that Bob Dole's father never hugged? Or that Jesse Jackson has a half-brother who is mixed up with drug dealers, murderers and terrorists? Or that the destruction of Barbara Bush's entire wardrobe of silk lingerie while her husband was in the navy "really got to her"? Or that Al Gore's candidacy "raised the possibility of a man going through a mid-life crisis while in the White House"?

Gail Sheehy seems to think so, and her recently-released Character: America's Search for Leadership proceeds from this assumption. Responding to many Americans, even certain members of the media, who believed that the press had gone too far in reporting the Gary Hart scandal of last year and had shown unmatched arrogance and overzealous tenacity in the process, Sheehy argues that understanding a candidate's character strengths and weaknesses is indispensible for understanding the candidate himself.

Never mind a candidate's stand on the issues, Sheehy warns us. After all, she argues, the issues have become increasingly diffuse, "too complicated to submit to clever political slogans." The parties have become virtually interchangeable. The candidates themselves are often big on rhetoric but thin on specifics, preferring instead to stake out popular, non-controversial positions (opposing new taxes and "big government" while supporting patriotism, "good jobs at good wages", and a "war on drugs").

Moreover, Sheehy astutely but unoriginally points out, some of our most recent presidents have been victimized not by bad policies, but by dangerous "character flaws." Richard Nixon's downfall was not Watergate, the argument goes, but his own feeling of paranoia that led him to order the break-ins. Likewise, Reagan's downfall was not the Iran-contra scandal in itself, but rather his inattention to detail and his willingness to delegate responsibility to zealots like Oliver North.

In Character, Sheehy makes a hardly novel argument that the characters of each of these six presidential candidates and of Reagan are the result of a single event or individual that had a profound impact on the candidate's development. The devastating injuries which Bob Dole received during his service in World War II have produced his "dark side," his insistence on self-reliance, and his often bitter sense of humor. Jesse Jackson's character and drive were nourished in the subculture of the segregated black South, and his insatiable quest for legitimacy and respect are the product of having been born out of wedlock and constantly being reminded of that fact in his youth. Likewise, Al Gore Jr.'s precociousness comes from his overwhelming desire to do twice as well as expected, so as not to be seen as coasting on his father's coattails.

YET Sheehy borders on the implausible when she suggests that George Bush submitted to Reagan as his father figure in the same manner as he had submitted to his authoritarian father as a youth or that Gary Hart, whom she compares to Gatsby, is unable to "search out a middle path between Nazarene perfection and Beatty-esque amorality." Too often, Sheehy's ruins a well-written chapter with such pop psychology.

Sheehy does occasionally put her thorough reporting skills to good use, producing some well-written chapters about the so-called "character flaws" of the candidates. Her opening chapters on Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson are incredibly damning, but she then settles down to portray Dole, Gore and Dukakis in a largely favorable light.

Which leads one to ask what exactly Sheehy's purpose is. Is it to expose the character flaws in our candidates so as to ensure that, heaven forbid, Jackson or Bush won't make it to the White House? Is it to set forth any coherent idea as to what constitutes "presidential" character? Is it to explore what unique characteristics propel one individual to seek the nation's highest office, while the rest of us demur?

Or is it more of a therapeutic plan, in effect saying to the American people, "Our past four elected presidents and this year's crop of candidates have gone as far as they have with serious 'character flaws', so don't worry if you have any"?

UNFORTUNATELY, it's none of these. For what's most troubling about Character is Sheehy's cynical mindset, namely the assumption that today's candidates are inherently lying, pandering and manipulative bastards, trying to con the living daylights out of those malleable voters. Therefore, this self-serving mindset continues, voters should wise up, ignore what the candidates are saying, and treat what an "enlightened" few in the press say about them as gospel.

Just because today's issues may be more "diffuse" than in the past and can't be as easily reduced to three-word political slogans doesn't mean that we should ignore what the candidates are saying on AIDS or the budget deficit and focus exclusively on Jackson's apparent meglomania, Dole's "darkness" or Dukakis' stubborness. If Sheehy really wants someone with a "flawless character" like Ozzie Nelson or Ward Cleaver to run for president (which is the impression she gives), why doesn't she just say so?

So the next time you hear Tom Brokaw or David Brinkley accusing the candidates of being shallow and vague on the issues and of not providing realistic solutions to the deficit, think about Gail Sheehy and the premium (or lack thereof) she seems to put on important policy questions.