Teams Running for Presidency Would Have a

¶ … teams running for presidency would have a real chance, however, they are indeed two of the most interesting presidential couples the American history has seen. I intend to draw a brief portrait of all four potential president and vice- president candidates, so as to draw conclusions on the way they would run there campaign and their motives. Howard Roark is the emblem of individualism. As one excellent discussion based on his characters mentions, he is "never concerned with the thoughts of others.

He not only doesn't care about their opinions, he doesn't even think to care." Thus, here is someone who thinks his opinion is always best, for the sole reason that there is no other opinion. This is not somewhat I am mentioning in a negative way, for the author has a more than sympathetic attitude towards the character and he stands out as someone who is not ready to compromise.

Peter Keating is "a follower," that is someone who never thinks for himself and never has an opinion about anything, but rather chooses to go with what others believe. The two men are thus "on the extreme sides of conformity and independence." As such, in my opinion, the two are very likely to make an excellent presidential team. I am asserting this because they will be complementing one another successfully, as Roark leads and Keating follows. The consequences for the country are deemed, however, to be gloomier.

This is because a democracy means consulting one another and discussing the best choice. In my opinion, Roark would be as close to a dictatorship as the Constitution would permit him. We have seen that he tends not only to ignore other people's opinions, but to nullify them altogether. This may lead to an isolated governance of the President and Vice- President and they would have to find strong groups of interested to back them up.

Part of their political message should be directed this way (however, it is to be debated whether Roark's character would actually allow industrialists to dictate part of his policies), another to independent minds like Roark (writers, intellectuals, etc.). The success of the campaign, where you always have to compromise, is doubtful. Jay Gatsby, on the other hand, is a clear materialist and he would be an excellent person to make compromises (see, for example, that he has made his fortune through intensive speculating and bootlegging, both activities implying certain compromises...).

He can make an excellent politician, much better adapted to the presidential campaign that his idealistic counterpart. Tom Buchanan is an opportunist, very much like Gatsby, however, these two would make a much better team and are much more likely to win. Their message will certainly find answers with the grand capitalists and industrialists, who will be promised more winnings and better business. The effect.