To What and to Whom is this Candidate Dedicated?
The apparent lack of positive focus in obstructionist congresspersons lately inspires some thinking about how to head off electing them during candidacy. How can we expose a candidate’s shallow or errant motivation before election?
Whenever we voters get the chance to challenge national political candidates about their character, we must engage them about their motivation. Motivation can easily be assumed to be flawless and thus ignored in debates and other public presentations. Unpopular as it may be to buck that pattern, political candidates need to feel our insistence on discussing their motivation. Their basic values are real and constitute a keystone of solid character.
Is there, among a candidate’s unique set of values a pattern of thinking often and clearly about how they are serving the common good, or not? Assessing that will be a good start to appraising their character early in their candidacy. Is this candidate committed to the betterment of all human beings everywhere as a major component of their purpose in that top political role? Are they letting motivations — other values less connected to the good of the people — overshadow their primary purpose as a potential top politician? Can they talk about that with authenticity?
Not commonly mentioned by anybody as a criterion for being elected as a public official, dedication to humanity remains the very purpose of top political leadership. That is especially true in the most currently powerful nations in the world. If our top leaders aren’t thinking about the planet and humanity, who holds that responsibility?
Typically, more assumed than observed in candidates, the state of their dedication to humanity needs far more attention from voters than we now give it. We take for granted that when a person reveals that they are “running” for national office, they are running in the intended direction. Can they get themselves clear that their job in that role will include working diligently to improve human lives through their leadership? And that they should be thinking about that goal often.
We are speaking here about motivation—why we do what we do. The old terminology for this virtue, piety, meant investing one’s energy, focus, and purpose in something beyond themselves, by many names— holiness (“otherness”), the spirit-world we cannot control, the great spirit, the creator, God, Allah, Yahweh, the good of the universe….
What are the alternatives to such soulfulness? And how do we recognize them in political candidates as wasteful noise at the least, and destructive to the nation and humanity at the worst? Soul is the core of a human being, the essential center without which that person would not be uniquely them. Touching that central core is always felt as a profound experience. When we talk while in touch with the core of us we get through to other people. “What comes from the heart, reaches the heart”.
There are several commonly known but wasteful focuses for a politician’s enthusiasm that seldom touch their soul. Money for one’s own bottom line, which fits well the motivation of the citizenry as a whole; power, that glorious but temporary excitement of being superior to somebody, as many as possible; cheap basking in a glow of being seen in some enhanced situation of appreciation from others, rooted in natural or excessive narcissism; vengeance, its own brand of inward gleeful delight at the power of payback of a perceived wrong done by somebody at your expense; or fashioning a legacy, again legitimate but in excess also its own brand of pride. There are no doubt other such diversions. All of them to some degree distract from the contracted focus on helping humanity, in neighborhood, precinct, state, nation, or globe.
Motivation is shown by what we do, not so much by what we claim, promise, imply, or hint about as our genuine interest and life mission. As voters are increasingly able to watch public officials’ actions in bits and pieces, with satellite technology and streaming TV, it is so easy for us to make snap decisions about the candidates who are running. But what are the various values for which they are politically purposed? It is one thing to run well. It is another thing to know why you are running, consciously or unconsciously, and to what end. A key question for all candidates: “Do your aspirations and spending of your energy fit the mandate of your intended role, some aspect of the common good?”
Voters can tell a bit about candidates’ various motivations from public appearances. Their values do show to some degree. Events sometimes suggest to us that specific politicians are motivated by only obstruction and not constructive accomplishments. That ought to make us more interested in “counseling them out” early through direct engagement, challenging questions, and polite, pointed confrontation. A central attitude could be, “Is this candidate more interested in such lesser goals as obtaining a secure position, public acclaim, a positive self-image, a secure salary with generous retirement benefits, and being installed as part of history? Other candidates may, even unconsciously, be more interested in power and the injection of energy into their life simply from winning, dominating, being seen as successful at something esteemed by many people.
It is now past time to vet candidates with challenging questions about their character in public appearances, and eventually in small groups of savvy voters. How could we test for the character element of “dedication to humanity”?
First: Initiate conversation with them about a current or perennial global issue, including their attitudes. Talking seriously and personally about what you do, believe, and think tends to engage several parts of the personality at once, further developing the integration of the person. Where is that in our election process? How long can we put off the best way of assessing character, in small process groups where people “get real” quite quickly?
Observe in the candidate’s responses how they address or even consider a serious issue like world hunger, relentless environmental destruction, racial unfairness, LGBTQ civil rights, or the human pain caused to civilians by combat destruction of their people or materials, as the destruction of personhood so often wrecked on combat veterans truncating their lives ever after. Does this candidate feel anything real about any of these pains of humanity?
Query about how a candidate feels about an issue, without paragraphs of explanation, best in a single word. Use the common assumption about basic and universal feelings such as anger, sadness, hurt, fear, joy, or regret. What do they feel about an issue when driving home, going for a walk, or praying? What a person feels about an issue shows one window into their character, especially if they have some role in leadership to address it. Can you see that they typically ignore that issue, blame it on somebody else, or are distracted by a strong assertion about some extraneous other issue?
Can they speak about what they have done, or tried to do, about a perennial issue from their previous public roles? What seems to be their attitude about the dragging on of that situation such as homelessness even if it is unrealistic that they could have addressed it in any effective way? Are they genuinely sad, feel the hurt of empathy, or aggravation about the world’s passivity about excruciating situations such as those in Haiti, Ukraine, and Somalia, even if momentarily? Even some talking about this on a feeling level may change some candidates for good.
Or do they slide over the urgency of the perennial issues in the ordinary lives of some people?
How a candidate feels about a serious global issue signals their dedication to humanity, or not. Should they be given the public trust of a major world power without such a solid commitment to watching for chances to make even minor contributions to those unfortunates by actions of any kind?
There are at least seventeen other character elements to be assessed in candidates before electing them. See Gordon J Hilsman’s elucidating book “Assessing the CHARACTER of Candidates for National Political Office: In Search of a Collaborative Spirit”.
