I noticed today a lot of chatter about Oprah Winfrey’s possible advancement of a candidacy for the Democrats’ Presidential nomination in 2020, but I must confess I mostly did not read up on it except for the piece by Kevin Williamson in National Review. It’s easy to write useless puff pieces if you like a candidate – but you may learn more by reading someone opposed to such a Presidency. While Kevin is aware that a compare and contrast with President Trump would not turn out well for Trump, he does have an opening salvo in case of a Winfrey campaign:
Of course she is categorically unqualified for the office. But have fun imagining Republicans making that case in the shadow of Donald J. Trump, Very Stable Genius™. Oprah’s formal educational attainments are modest, whatever political ideas she has seem to be largely undeveloped, and she has an obvious and regrettable weakness for quacks and cranks of sundry sorts: anti-vaccine nuts, Dr. Oz, doctors who use Tarot cards to diagnose thyroid problems, etc. She is a one-woman public-health menace.
I have no direct exposure to Winfrey. Never watched the show, read the magazine, probably not even seen her movies (she’s made a few), nor have I researched her. Kevin’s remarks are, therefore, contingent in my view, but given that they are a little troubling. I prefer my medicine to be evidence-based, not charisma-based, and so that may be a problem.
Or maybe not. While the history of a politician is of vital importance for evaluation purposes, it’s also important to realize that adults mature and change. It’s possible that a decade or two ago Winfrey was easy prey to the quacks, but today she’s learned of their worthlessness and now disdains them.
But I don’t know.
So my real point is that current views, not past views, are the most important in the evaluation process. If she’s forceful in saying she made mistakes and no longer has any use for superstitious rot, then great; if she equivocates and mentions her great experience with a palm reader last week (shades of Nancy Reagan!), then she’s probably a poor choice for President, although still superior to Trump. But allowing ancient history to make a decision for me is undesirable.
And for you.
My Arts Editor points out, as Kevin also notes, that she’s done well going from zero to the wealthiest woman in the world, and while business skills have little application in the governance sector, a keen understanding of how to build a team of experts has a great deal of applicability. Does she understand the difference? The Executive doesn’t need to be an expert in much of anything but assembling proper people to lead the various Cabinet and other positions, a stable temperament, and a keen understanding of the hows and whys of the Executive branch. Has Winfrey studied the subject? Or is she coasting in on her fame?
This is what interviews and debates should uncover.
So we’ll see what the coming months have to show. Personally, I think it’s a little early to start the 2020 campaign, even if Trump had already filed for it before he had even assumed office.
