Bitter arguments over flag pins and fiery preachers, phantom snipers and shady donors.

Is this any way to pick a president?

As Tuesday's primary draws near, North Carolinians may shake their heads at the personal issues -- the high-minded claims and lowdown attacks -- that have taken center stage in the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. But voters might take comfort knowing that questions of character have always been central to American politics.

Since George Washington's supporters cast him as the man who could not tell a lie and "Honest" Abe's backers extolled the homespun wisdom of the man born in a log cabin, candidates have trumpeted their personal virtues.

And at least since the vicious campaign of 1800, when John Adams' crew said Thomas Jefferson was "godless" and Jefferson's camp called Adams a "scaremonger" -- sound familiar? -- candidates have tried to destroy their opponents' good name.

"Questions of character and personality ... matter so much," said William . Chafe, a Duke University history professor, "because they are the ultimate decision points for most Americans."

So character counts -- a lot. But is this a good thing? Would we better off sticking to lofty debates over substantive issues such as the war, the economy, health care? Or does our much maligned obsession with personality raise essential questions about our potential leaders that can't be answered by policy statements alone?

In recent interviews, historians and political scientists lamented the frothy claims and frivolous concerns that have dominated this primary season and underscored the profound importance of character.

Anybody can make promises; only some people can keep them. Determining who has the personal skills to realize their visions requires voters to be part policy wonk, part fortuneteller.

"It is easy to know what the candidates say they will do," said Gil Troy, a McGill University history professor whose forthcoming book is titled "Leading From the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents."

"What's hard is divining the signs that might tell us whether they have the strength of their convictions, and whether they have the judgment, temperament, personality and leadership skills to meet the unforeseen challenges that will certainly arise during the next four to eight years."

When Woodrow Wilson ran in 1912, Troy noted, he emphasized his domestic agenda, saying, "It would be the irony of fate if my administration had to deal chiefly with foreign affairs." Two years later, as the guns of August opened World War I, Wilson was thrust into history he had scarcely imagined.

More recently, the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have defined the presidency of George W. Bush, who barely mentioned terrorism during his 2000 campaign.

This expectation of the unexpected is what makes character important.

"Elections are like picking a pig in a poke," said Glenda Gilmore, a Yale University historian whose new book is titled "Defying Dixie: The Radical Roots of Civil Rights, 1919-1950."

"We can never know what crisis a president will face, so we focus on character as a way of trying to predict their behavior."

The incumbent effect

This quest for certainty in an uncertain world helps explain why incumbents usually win re-election.

"People would rather vote for the skunk they know," Gilmore said.

It also accounts for the common refrain: "I don't always agree with them, but I know where they stand." This helps explain some of Jesse Helms' appeal and why the flip-flopper charge was so devastating to John Kerry in 2004.

Next page >