While it seems obvious, the selection process has one simple ultimate purpose:  selecting the person best suited to be the next President of the United States.  Unfortunately, that point seems lost on many of the people — Democrat and Republican alike — who end up making the choice.  And, it would seem that the skill set that makes for a good presidential candidate and successful campaign is no longer congruent with that conducive to a successful presidency.

The President is the Chief Executive of the United States, and he serves (fairly uniquely among democratic societies) as both the Head of State and the Head of Government.  He is thus both the manager of the parts of government that deal with executing the laws passed by Congress, as well as the "face of the country" when dealing with the world; he also, of course, serves as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.  This confluence of responsibility, coupled with the American economic and military might, makes the choosing of an effective, reliable leader so important.

So what qualities make a successful President?  I isolate three main areas in which a person must excel in order to be effective in this difficult position:  vision, organization, and temperament.

Vision.  Any leader needs to have a fairly clear idea of where he (or she) wants to take those whom he wishes to lead.  Politics, at its best, is a marketplace of ideas, and we want our President to have them, to lead the discussion.  Citizens like to be inspired by their leaders, and personal magnetism can only go so far.  Broad themes, even those as disparate as more individual liberty and limited government versus a more activist government that takes on the inequities of society; either can be embraced by voters if the candidate is selling what seems to be a bold vision.  Ronald Reagan successfully sold a vision of America as a "shining city on a hill", with ideas of ending — not just coexisting with — Communism and the Soviet threat, to expand freedom, and to unleash the private markets through less government intrusion on the marketplace and lower taxes.  He was elected twice by landslide margins.

Yet Franklin Roosevelt laid out a vision that was nearly the opposite — higher taxes, more government direction of the economy, more programs to take care of people.  When war time came, he showed similar clear vision:  America was going to war not just against the immediate threats posed by the Axis powers, but was further going to remove the long-term fascist threat to American democracy.  He was barely threatened in any of his four contests.

Organization.  As the Chief Executive, the President stands at the head of a massive federal bureaucracy.  He is ultimately responsible for such varied activities as disaster relief and the war in Afghanistan, and he must manage his relationship with Congress to ensure he has influence on legislation and that he gets his various appointments through legislative approval.  A successful President must be adept at organization and management.  Where to micromanage and where to delegate are important decisions, as is whom to place in important positions.  Even a seemingly minor nominee can cause major difficulties (as evidenced by the current Obama Administration problems with the ATF's "Fast and Furious" gun program and the Department of Energy's Solyndra fiasco).

Setting up the right organizational structure of the White House and then choosing the right people to fill the positions is crucial to the day-to-day operation of the White House apparatus and can filter down throughout the Executive Branch.  It is crucial to implementation of that vision mentioned above.  But that's only part of the story, since most Presidencies are most notable not for their original agenda, but how they respond to the unexpected.  If an Administration is poorly organized and managed, crises as varied as 9/11, the Wall Street Meltdown, or the current debt stalemate will not be handled smoothly.

Temperament.  It is famously said of FDR that he had a "third-class intellect but a first-class temperament".  When war came with Japan, Germany, and Italy, he was not shaken by the events around him, but rather mobilized an entire country for war.  Because he was unfazed and confident in the face of a new World War, it was easier for those around him — and the citizens at large — to face the threat similarly and be galvanized into action.  Similarly, George W. Bush drew praise from conservatives and liberals alike with his steady response to the 9/11 attacks; his bullhorn speech at the World Trade Center rubble was a poignant and inspiring point in his Presidency, and led to approval ratings of over 90%.

How will a President react to conflicts with Congress, natural disasters, or war?  How will he deal with frustration, anger, or sadness?  No President can be considered great who can't imbue those around him and the general public with confidence that he — and we — can face the crisis with resolve, character, and steadfastness.

Vision.  Organization.  Temperament.  These are the qualities we need in the next President.  Yet instead of probing these issues, it seems most people are concentrating on tactics and positions on individual issues with little regard to nuance or perspective.  I think this is the wrong approach to choosing our leaders.