(4 of 9)
In a way, that reliance on good people is the only way the President can do his own job well. He has to be a good listener, to be a good analyst of the arguments. And then there is a certain instinctive common sense, good judgment, that is more necessary than almost anything.
A President cannot be an expert on every detail in the economy, every detail in the defense, every detail in foreign policy. He does not have to be a scientist or a computer expert. He has to have good judgment as he listens to the arguments pro and con, as he asks questions of people who are making a presentation. He knows that Mr. A is the best economist he can get, who is objectively giving him the options, or Mr. B is a totally competent Secretary of Defense or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and will give him without prejudice what the options may be in a military sense. If a President has that, plus his own background in what the problems are, then he only needs good judgment. That's the key, good judgment. Even the most complicated things can be brought down to a denominator where an intelligent man can understand the differences and the options that are available.
There can be conflicts, too, between different officials favoring different options. I myself liked to have a consensus developed before a problem came to my desk for decision, but then I reserved the right to go behind that consensus to find out what the differing views were in the process. In were in the process. In that way I got a feel as to whether it was just a weak compromise or whether it was a legitimate one that provided the best answer. You can have compromises that just destroy the arguments on either the right or the left, and that is a pretty poor policy. On the other hand, you can have a good consensus where things actually mesh.
It's a hard job being President — but despite all the talk about the heavy burdens, the job is not too big for any one man. I get sick and tired of hearing people say you ought to have two Presidents. I don't have any sympathy for that argument. Don't misunderstand me. It is a job that takes about twelve to 14 hours a day. But what is wrong with that? The President of the United States ought to be willing to spend that land of time. Anybody who walks in there thinking he can punch a time clock at 9 in the morning and leave at 5 has got another thought coming. We do not elect Presidents who want that kind of a life.
There is a lot of wasted motion, of course. The worst waste is that there are an awful lot of perfunctory, ceremonial things that have to be done. They take up about 15% to 20% of a President's time — more in election years. But I guess they have to be done. After all, if they are not done, the public gets the wrong perception of the President, that he is behind the walls of the West Wing of the White House and he does not want to meet the people. But if you look at it from a cost-benefit ratio of time spent, he ought to be spending his time on the business that just keeps flowing in and out of the Oval Office.