Discerning Authenticity In Presidential Candidates

Last Saturday, January 5, Pat and I watched our first presidential debates. We watched the Democrat debate all the way through, and saw about half of the Republican debate. The debate between the Democrats centered on whether it would be more important to be the candidate with the most experience or to be a candidate who would be a catalyst for change. In our house the threshold for the measurement of what constitutes change is pretty low. Despite the fact that we would both lean toward Democrats, after a few minutes of watching the Republican candidates Pat said,"any of these guys would be better than Bush." I agree.

At the moment, I am less concerned about where the candidates stand on the issues then I am about their basic authenticity; that is, do I know where they will take the country, can I believe them, will they follow through and will they be able to get results? Most of us know our positions on the issues we care about and we know how to find out where the candidates stand. But how do we evaluate authenticity? Below I have proposed five criteria that I think defines a leader's basic authenticity:

Has the candidate stated a vision for the future?
A candidate can have a great track record and a history of success, but where will he or she lead us? I want to know where the candidate wants to take us and I want to see it clearly and unambiguously, so that I can decide if I want to be part of it. Examples of visions, past and present, that have inspired me include; Al Gore's vision of a sustainable planet, President Kennedy's challenge to go to the moon and Dr. Martin Luther King's dream of racial equality.

Does the candidate's vision inspire action?
In other words, does a candidate motivate us to get off our butts and do something? Visions only work if they are shared. In the past year Pat and I began keeping a weekly peace vigil with others because we believe that war as a solution to solving problems is irrational and unnecessary. While the War in Iraq and the continued occupation of Palestine by Israel has been a prime motivation we've also been influenced by former President Jimmy Carter's advocacy of Human Rights and Democratic Institutions. In the 1960's I joined the VISTA program in part because of President Kennedy's challenge to sacrifice and serve.

Is the candidate motivated by service as opposed to arrogance and self promotion?
This is maybe the hardest to discern in today's world of sales, marketing and media driven politics. But the things to ask ourselves once we get beyond the clothes, the hairdos, the practiced smiles and rehearsed talking points are: Will the candidate recruit strong people? Is he or she not only tolerant of but inviting of different points of view? Will people who work for this leader be willing and able to deliver bad news, take contrarian positions and challenge the default approach to issues. Looking backward, I ask myself if we would have had invaded Iraq if there had been a more deliberately established diversity in formulating foreign policy ideas, more critical thinking about the root causes of September 11 and more effort to perceive the future consequences of the decision to initiate a preemptive invasion in terms of the cost to our society and our position globally.

What are this candidate's priorities?
The professor of management and author Peter Drucker described this as "first things first". So what is the core issue or two that will define a first term as president? You may remember the famous incantation of Clinton's campaign and first term; "its the economy stupid!" Looking back in history we could probably agree that for Franklin Roosevelt "Putting people back to work" was the "front burner" issue.

Is this candidate able to learn from their experience and change their attitudes and maybe even the course as they gain new information?
Civil Rights and ending segregation was not high on President Kennedy's agenda, if at all, when he came to office in 1960. He didn't want to alienate the powerful southern democrats, in the congress, who could undermine his legislative agenda. But as circumstances changed and the brutality against Blacks increased he changed his stance and became a president who mobilized the federal government to protect the freedom riders, the demonstrators in Birmingham and students desegregating the Southern Universities. By 1963 he was supporting passage of federal civil rights legislation. To evaluate this in the current candidates running for president might take some deeper research into their biographies. In addition, how they answer questions that ask them look critically at mistakes they may have made, or how certain events or life experiences changed them may provide hints as to how open they would be to changing course, as president, if circumstances required it.

We can be sure that the candidates will appeal to their base constituents and parse their views to gather a hefty share of independent and centrist voters. But underneath the rhetoric, image and position papers is a person, who has qualities of leadership, that given the circumstances they will face, could result in greatness. I am betting that the candidate with a clear vision, who inspires action, is motivated by service, articulates clear priorities and demonstrates the ability to to change will emerge the winner.