“Boys and Girls” – Relationship essay

Chris Matthews, who has been active in the political scene for decades, shows a good (if poorly expressed) understanding of how a lawyer from WWII general or an actor from California can play the right political cards to win the presidency. In his book “Hardball”, Matthews asserts that the game of politics to be one more of subtle nuances and individual technique than a matter simply of luck or formula, as many people are inclined to believe. A candidate must show ambition and a natural knack for leadership to even stand apart from his peers. He must have good communication skills, whether on the personal level or on the group level. And perhaps most importantly, he must be willing to compromise, to work with delegates both from his own party and with the opposition, and must do so in such a way that his enemies somehow feel indebted to him. Once an aspiring politician has mastered these lesser-known tricks of the trade, he is ready to play “hardball” politics.

Matthews’ anecdote about Lyndon B. Johnson’s first foray into politics, as a secretary for a representative during the Great Depression, is one example of how a person may become a leader simply by demonstrating leadership qualities. The young Johnson, staying in the same hotel as many of the other congressional secretaries, made it his mission to meet and befriend each and every one of them. Though he picked an unlikely method in which to accomplish his goal, his “innovative” methods paid off when three months later he was elected leader of the House staff assistants.

Once Johnson proved that he was willing to do whatever it took to accomplish his goals, the people around him saw that he was a strong leader, and thus selected him over his peers. In a nation where nearly all members of the government are elected by people who have faith in their leadership skills, this anecdote seems especially applicable. While there is no one obvious set of qualities that defines a leader, it is obvious that some qualities repeat themselves over and over. To distinguish oneself, then, might very well be the most important part of becoming involved in politics. Tell the voters why you, and not any other candidate, are capable of representing them in Washington, and you have their votes.

Obviously it is incredibly important that a politician be able to express his ideas as concisely and unwaveringly as possible to the public. However, the way in which he communicates must largely be based upon his strengths as a communicator. Johnson’s approach to meeting the congressional secretaries worked for him because he was very good at relating to people on a personal level. Though he was never good at addressing large groups, and often showed signs of nervousness when he spoke at large White House events, Johnson’s ability to communicate well with individuals helped him to become president. He knew just how to address different people in order to get the response he desired. Ronald Regan, as an actor, was Johnson’s polar opposite. He knew that his strongest asset was his effectiveness as a speaker when broadcast to the masses. Regan harnessed this asset and used it, as well as his good looks, to win people over on television. Matthews points out that both approaches can be equally effective. The key is to know which approach would be better suited to each individual candidate.

All the good communication in the world will not help a candidate who refuses to work with members of the opposition, as Matthews points out in his chapter titled “Keep your enemies in front of you.” Regan, for instance, picked Jim Baker to work closely with him, even though he and Baker had long been enemies. In a similar move, Franklin Roosevelt defeated Wendell Wilkie for the presidency, and only a little while later appointed Wilkie as a special envoy to Britain. Both men realized that they could not only appease their enemies by giving them important jobs, but also keep an eye on them. Furthermore, an enemy who is busy helping run the nation is typically too busy to organize a new campaign for himself or another member of his party. Though Matthews points out several occasions on which this strategy has worked, he fails to make an airtight case for it. After all, a truly vicious enemy might always deliberately underperform in his new position if he feels he is being used or mocked by a victorious candidate. Once again, the effectiveness of this approach varies depending upon the candidate.

Although Matthews’ book is hardly up-to-date and seems to be made up in part of Matthews himself reminiscing about “the good old days,” much of the advice he offers is to be trusted. The key, whether the issue at hand is communication, leadership, or the integration of politicians from both parties into a solid and dependable Cabinet, is to play upon one’s own strongest points and exploit them in order to receive the best response from the public.