Respectability Is Overrated

I woke up early this morning (in spite of the fact that it's a Saturday) with the accomplishment of a couple of goals in mind. One of them was to dive right into writing so that I could get a weekend posting up on the blog; which of course proved a dismal failure, since the blank page in front of me didn't appear willing to fill itself with clever literary bits of even more clever thought. This is something that I am often all too familiar with however, being neither as diligent or as talented as some of my fellow bloggers; but I resolved to stick with it.

The second of those goals was to do something about my disreputable appearance. It's all well and good to be a Curmudgeon, but looking like one of the finalists in the 'Aqualung' look-like contest can become rather tedious over time. I had therefore resolved to make my way down to local barbershop early in the day (when few would see me and the work could be done quickly) to have an assessment of the damage done, and what repairs made that could be performed.

Their work complete, I was handed a mirror to see the results of their prodigious efforts. While of course they only had the material at hand to work with, they had managed to produce results; and a certain degree of respectability in appearance had been restored. Being a fixed charge establishment, they were woefully recompensed for their labors, something which I could only attempt to remedy with suitable gratuity.

While such efforts are only 'hair deep' and seldom last, I found that in returning to the accusing blank page that still stared back at me, that I now had something to waste a bit of keyboard effort upon … Respectability.

In this an election year, it certainly seems to be something that many running for office are attempting to exemplify. It's hard enough, I realized, to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear in my own case; without having to overcome a lifetime of public service foibles while trolling the public for votes. Every past error in judgment, every misstatement, and every personal peccadillo will be poked and prodded by the vultures in the media. And if by some chance of fate one should be overlooked (or under-reported) there is little doubt that it will be discovered by the blogosphere and and displayed for all to see anyway.

Who among us is so perfect that we can stand such scrutiny, who of us has not modified our beliefs, our public pronouncements, and our behavior over time. In fact, I would find myself far more suspicious of someone who had not. Someone so rigid, so self-assured, and so righteous seems far more dangerous than one who remains open to learning new facts and new truth, and adjusts their beliefs to compensate for such an education.

As for the appearance or respectability, I have to ask myself if we are seeking true leaders in this country, or merely casting for them. Shall we elect Jimmy Smits, Martin Sheen “The West Wing”, Kevin Kline “Dave”, or Michael Douglas “The American President” simply on their ability to appear presidential? Does a good haircut and a well-cut suit imply the ability to become the leader of the free world? Have we become so shallow that a well-crafted speech, well-performed off of a teleprompter, is to become the measure of choosing a commander-in-chief?

The pictures that I have seen of Washington, Adams (or his son John Quincy Adams), Jefferson, and Madison do not persuade me that they were striking figures of respectability. Tyler and Lincoln's were completely disreputable (if not downright ugly) and they should thank goodness that they ran for office before television. Cleveland and Taft could have stood some time in the gym in order to look more respectable. And as for Ronald Reagan, though I love the man, that haircut of his was absolutely ridiculous. Some may point to Kennedy to make an argument to the contrary, but a serious debate could be mounted on the fact that his respectable appearance was apparently only skin-deep; hiding some correspondingly ugly character traits that it might have been nice to know about. Such thinking recently in fact, might well have seen John Edwards as the resident of the White House instead of the current one, a prospect in light of later revelations that's too horrible to contemplate.

Looking at the current crop of applicants for the highest office in the land therefore, may require voters to look beyond the well-coiffed, well crafted images created by their handlers; or the well written messages of speech writers who probably look like they need to get out in the sun once in a while.  They may actually be forced to look at whether these men have a clear and believable vision to get this country out of the mess that it'sin right now, along with the ability to bring about consensus to follow that vision. 


I am forced to the conclusion that Respectability may in fact be overrated, both in a political candidate … and in myself. While there are other traits that may be sought after and admired, this one may prove mostly vacuous.  When all is said and done, a disreputable appearance may not in fact be an accurate way to judge the character of a man, and may in fact indicate a far greater concern for dealing with reality than creating illusion.

Hey!  This could mean that there's some small hope for me (in life, not office) after all.  Man, I hope those guys at the barbershop can get along without counting on my regular visits for a while ...

The Operative Term

I have been thinking about many of the upcoming campaigns a bit lately, and while the duration of the one for the highest office in the land has become all but interminable, I must say that my curiosity is piqued. Being a commenter on politics in general for a while now, on the process, and occasionally on the people involved; I sometimes ponder what it might be like to be on the other side. 


Don't get me wrong here folks, I have no aspirations nor any intentions of seeking elected office. I have far to many skeletons in my closet (a problem that increasingly makes it difficult to hang up my clothes) to even consider such an effort. My irresponsible nature likewise precludes me from hold a position of any responsibility, let alone authority. Even if I were interested (and believe me I'm not) there's the fact that I am by self-definition a Curmudgeon, and the tendency to be a cranky bastard would make me a difficult candidate for anyone to warm up to. 


All of that being said however, I believe that I might prove of some small value to the efforts of someone in seeking office. After all, I have a rather extensive and successful career of over thirty years in sales and marketing to draw upon that might be of some worth in the 'selling' of a candidate to the voting public. I have likewise been told that I have some meager ability to string together words coherently (not that you could tell it from this effort), which might prove useful in preparing both press releases and speeches. With the exercise of considerable effort, I can even occasionally manage to control my temper for short periods in what often seems like interminable meetings about campaign strategy. 


As a consequence, I cannot help but find myself wondering whether it would be worthwhile to offer my services to a worthy candidate as a political operative. Some of my acquaintance (and that I greatly respect) have offered themselves up to such service at one time or another in the past. Roland Hansen operated for some years as both an elected official and political operative. Maggie Thurber has likewise both held elected political office and worked to help others do so. Denise Soper, though never having run for office, certainly contributed greatly to a recent political campaign in NW Ohio. And while I have no prior experience in such efforts and would certainly expect to hold no more than a minor position at best, the idea of helping someone worthy of being elected to reach that goal is somewhat intriguing. 


Of course it's entirely possible that my efforts would stink worse than a cheap cigar (something I try to remain unfamiliar with). Such efforts require not only talent, but dedication; and my reserves of both were never all that extensive. It's also entirely possible that such thoughts are as self-serving as many of the politicians who put themselves forward for election. Altruism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder; and one person's dedication is another's self-serving fanaticism. It may be that the idea of putting the term 'political operative' on my resume is what I find so fascinating, and not the concept of entering the struggle to see an able person fill a necessary role. 


Motives are after all, something that we should always call into question where politics is concerned. Who is the person seeking office and of what is their character made? What are their qualifications for office and what are the reasons that they seek to serve? Would the siren song of power and authority over others make them fall prey to the corrupting influences that surround office holders, or could this person be counted on to remain true to their principles after election?  


Even my own aspirations to perhaps play a minor role will bear much greater scrutiny before I would be willing to cast a vote. Would participating in the process in particular contaminate my ability to comment on it in general? Would crossing this line make me part of the problem or part of the solution? Would I have to wear a campaign button? (I really hate campaign buttons.) I have to admit that there is something about the concept that I find rather compelling though. Motive, Qualifications, Worthiness, Principle, and Character ... there are many words that could in fact be said to be operative terms to be considered in such a decision ...

Political Candidates: A 'Royal' Pain in the Ass

You know, it's bad enough that we have to put up with what has become an almost never-ending campaign season without having politicians add insult to injury. I understand that candidates have to raise money to match the riches of Croesus in order to run these days, and must therefore begin the process of large scale begging far earlier than politicians of prior generations. I understand as well that when the president isn't making a speech that shows his inability to function without a teleprompter, we have to put up with the lunacy of 24 hour a day coverage of who's running, who's not, and who all the really smart people would like to have running against the President in these early days of the campaign. I even understand that the game of politics can only be played these days if the candidate is the quarterback surrounded by a large team of handlers, writers, and countless other minions to operate on their every whim. 


Of course most of these skill players only exist to keep the candidate from making a fatal misstep in front of cameras or constituents. (Which begs the question of whether Newt Gingrich's leadership skills should be judged by his campaign's early faux pas. But that's a question for another day ...) The last time that I looked however, it was still individual candidates who were announcing their intention to run for office. It seems however, that it's not enough that we have to put up with overflowing hubris, rampant egotism, and only a vague pretense of false modesty in our candidates. 


Now we have to deal with an apparent assumption of a mantle of nobility by candidates running for elected office, a concept that I thought this country was formed to belie. At least that's what I am forced to conclude based on the fact that so many feel the need to refer to themselves in the third person, and with the royal "We". 


Now I know that we've all grown used to the third party speech pattern from the examples given by the monumental egos of professional athletes. For like politicians, they too are brands to be marketed, and as such they often refer to themselves like brand names. Since I am a big fan of capitalism, it would hardly be consistent of me not to cut them some slack for the use of such language in their efforts. I likewise understand that politicians must in the end be sold to the voting public, so some third party rhetoric is necessary (though I suppose that something in me would prefer elected officials not to be bought and sold). 


I would prefer however, that such candidates not treat the process as if they were visiting royalty and not someone shilling for a vote. I don't care what 'WE' think about Obamacare, or what 'OUR' plan might be to solve the spending and deficit crisis in this country. Neither do I care what 'OUR' energy policy might be or what 'WE' plan to do to solve the impending insolvency of Social Security and Medicare. 


Annoyance at this assumed pose of aristocracy in fact often overshadows the ideas being put forward (good and bad); and obscure information that should be the basis on which we decide who might best serve the nation. Attempts at presumed nobility will not make a bad idea a good one, nor will an assumption of false eminence do anything to further policies and ideas that have long since been proven to be a failure. 


It's far past time that candidates learned to speak to us as a person, and from the heart about what they believe. Unlike many in this country lately, I manage to vote every time that an election is held (which reminds me that I need to change the address on my voting registration). As a consequence, I am getting a pretty regular view of the documents used to cast a vote. The last time I looked (not all that long ago), there was room for only one name on the ballot for each job. Since that's the case, perhaps its far past time that those running for elective office thin their internal herd while speaking to us. 


Of course maybe I've got this all wrong. Maybe this is not an assumption aristocracy, but an admission of multiple personality disorder; in which case these politicians may simply be trying to give us a heads up as to the nature and extent of their condition. Quite frankly I hope so. The other possibility, that they feel that by seeking such an exalted position of elected service, that they are somehow catapulted into a societal stratosphere that constitutes royalty in this country, is simply too terrible a thing to contemplate. 


You know, the story is frequently told that Admiral Hyman Rickover of nuclear navy fame had something to say on this subject. His comment was that, "Three groups are permitted that usage: pregnant women, royalty, and schizophrenics. Which one are you?" I can only add to that sentiment in a small way, by repeating what Queen Victoria is said to have stated, "We are not amused".

Assumption of Power

In the final days leading up to the November election, there appears to be a lot of assuming going on. The Republican Party is assuming that they will take over the majority in one, if not both Houses of Congress, the Democratic Party assumes that in spite of the low opinion that voters appear to have of the way they have been running things (especially in the last two years when they had the majority in both Houses of Congress and the resident in the White House) that they will retain that majority, and every political pundit in the US assumes that they know what's going on in the heads of the voters. 


Though we all know the saying about what happens when you assume, this prevents no one from doing so. The most heinous assumptions however, seem to be those made by the candidates themselves. Many running for political office this year assume that they are the best choice because of their paternity. Apparently the assumption here is that there is some genetic component to holding office, and that being born into what must be considered little more than a ruling elite is qualification enough for it. 


One can assume little else from behavior that takes great pains to insure that these names are prominently and conspicuously displayed. Married daughters even often hyphenate their names in order to insure paternal recognition or use 'professional' political names which drop that of their spouse entirely. Curiously, the reverse is equally true, and some seem to ignore their own paternity to claim that of their male spouse, apparently believing that political acumen is something that can be passed on during prolonged conjugal exposure. 


I will not give credence to such assumptive efforts by listing names that we are all too familiar to those in NW Ohio, Missouri, and Kansas. I will point out however that my own family in fact holds a distant relationship to the Adams family (John and John Quincy, not the rather creepy family made famous in the television show); but though one was a Founding Father and both were former presidents, I can certainly make no claim to political primogeniture as a consequence of this remote relationship. 


Incumbents are another of these assumptive class of politicians. In this case, it appears that possession may indeed be nine-tenths of the law, and that there is an unwritten right of assumption stating that holding an elective office constitutes the only necessary qualification for retaining it. This may be understandable in light of the confusion these days over what constitutes 'rights' in this country; especially the assumption that rights have to do with outcomes rather than opportunities. 


It is curious however, that while such experience appears to often be the exclusive claim to titular possession, any questioning of what has been done for (or to) constituents during this ownership is assumed to be off limits or in poor taste. It often seem in fact, as though there is an assumption that holding political office is much like a skilled trade. One need only serve the appropriate apprenticeship period and qualify for journeyman status. What follows is an assumption that this person will then hold office until a retirement at a time and age of their choosing. 


For myself, I am amazed and amused by such a concept and cannot help but wonder how many of these journeymen would fare if there were an 'Angie's List' compiled on public servants. This is not to say that accidents of birth or marriage should preclude one from seeking and holding public office, only to say that these circumstances do not in and of themselves constitute qualification. 


Neither is holding an elective office long enough to achieve tenure as a professor in most universities justification for the assumption of such tenure in elected office. In fact, those who designed the system of government we live under believed just the opposite; and felt that political office was a public trust that must be earned from the voters each time that an election is held. 


And so therefore in little more than three weeks, the final judgment on all such assumptions will take place at the ballot box. No doubt far too few of us will once again exercise their franchise and their responsibility to vote, but those chosen will still assume the power of their respective elected office nonetheless. Let us hope that they show wisdom, good sense, and respect for this responsibility; and do not make the assumption that selection means that they know what's best for us.

Promises & Lies

For as long as I can remember there have been three great promises: - I promise to respect you in the morning. - I promise to love you forever. - I promise you that the check is in the mail. Likewise, there were two great lies: - It's not my fault, someone else must have done it. - I'm from the government and I'm here to help. (taken from a great Ronald Reagan quote) There is rumored to be a third lie currently in committee (sought to balance the great scales of the universe no doubt): "No dear, that outfit doesn't make you look fat." But my understanding is that the committee in charge of such things holds its meetings only infrequently, often does so in secret, and in most cases can come to no meaningful conclusion on their responsibilities (you know, like Congress). 


Which leads us to the subject at hand. For those of you who have somehow managed to keep yourself from a newspaper (an ever-increasing number, apparently), the television, or the internet (in which case you wouldn't be reading this) we have entered one of the most offensive seasons of the year. 


No, I'm talking about fall with all of its cool breezes and bright colors. Nor am I speaking of one of the various hunting seasons that many animal rights activists seem to object to (my personal favorite is tourist season, though I have failed to bag one so far this year). I'm talking instead about campaign season. Now many might find this a surprise, since these days I find myself oftentimes writing about politics and political thought (subjects that often seem incompatible). In the spirit of full disclosure in fact, I must admit that such activity does provide a target-rich environment for someone with irony and sarcasm in their toolbox and the ability to string a couple of words together within their grasp. 


The problem however is that during campaign season, the concept of thought of any kind on the part of both the electable and the electorate seems difficult to discover; as are honesty, common sense, and good taste. We not only expect, but seemingly encourage those running for elected office to abandon logic, decorum, and common decency in their single-minded pursuit of public service. We stand by idly while the candidates 'take the gloves off' and manipulate the facts in ways that even a pretzel has never been twisted in their efforts. Even when such pronouncements rise beyond the level of libel, the messages delivered by these 'servants of the people' wanna-be's rarely rises beyond the level of "half-truths, mis-truths, and outright lies". (Quoted from the collected sayings of 'he who must not be named' in Toledo) 


To say that most of what many of those running for office (especially those members of the professional political class) say are deceptions actually does a disservice to the practice of what Mark Twain called telling whoppers. To say that such creative telling of the truth are little more than aspersion, calumny, invention, prevarication, evasion, distortion, subterfuge, slander (though not always in the legal sense), deceit, and backbiting is simply to use fine words (actually damn fine words, if I do say so myself) to describe an abominable and all too common practice in politics that does not deserve such treatment. 


As for promises, seldom if ever was a maiden wooed with such ardor and assurances as candidates give to the electorate during these calculated campaigns (and some would suggest that they do so with the same ultimate goal in mind). The lover might be forgiven their foibles in such amorous pursuits however, for at least in such an undertaking, polling data is not used to outline the most favorable strategy of guarantees to make to the prospective paramour.  


History is filled with the tradition of such vows, and their long use in politics down the ages are scattered lights illuminating a path that is both long and illustrious. Today's efforts often do little more in fact than remind us that human nature has changed little over the centuries, and that the promise of "bread and circuses" for the populace holds as much attraction today as it did during the Roman Empire (though it probably should be pointed out that such promises certainly contributed to this empire's fall). 


"Say anything," or so the saying goes. We are promised during these campaigns a cornucopia that includes the free lunch of health care, jobs created by the government (working for the government, apparently), and an economy that will once again become robust; if only we will put John or Jane in office. 


Once there however, far too many will take the Roman example to heart, playing the role of Nero and fiddling while Rome burns; but by then they will be safely ensconced in a well-paying system which provides numerous and generous protections for those already in power. Nor do voters seem affected by previous promises that have been made and broken, the unlikely odds of those currently being voiced being kept, or the unintended consequences probable to everyone if they were in fact to be realized. 


It appears to be sufficient to the day that the candidate 'cares' enough simply to make such promises. It likewise appears that in fact while we used to believe that "all is fair in love and war", we should be prepared in fact to add politics to the categories in which "the ends justify the means". It also seems that for at least another another five weeks, we must put up with an endless barrage of Promises and Lies from many if not most of those seeking to become public servants.

Candidate Qualities - The Search For The Grail

Well for those of you who have followed me in my quest for the qualities that should be needful or desirable in a political candidate or office holder, my heartfelt congratulations (and my sympathies). You have participated in a journey seemingly as long, as difficult (and almost as fruitless) as that King Arthur's knights made for the Holy Grail (Monty Python version, of course).

Like the knights in that tale, you have had to deal with everything in the world from the sublime to the ridiculous. You have braved the twisted paths of logic and reason created by the vagaries of the English language and faced the abuse of that mode of communication with the stout hearts shown by those fearless knights as they faced everything from vicious rabbits to French tormentors. (OK, they did run away in the end ... but so what.)

Be now of good cheer however, for though this cup may yet remain beyond our our grasp, we have discovered some of what we seek. Take rest now, and let us review this remarkable expedition so that we can all move on with the rest of our lives (and about time, eh).

In this search for the qualities that both we, and the candidates themselves seem to place the greatest importance on, we have explored: character, honesty, morals (and with it, ethics), and the ability to be a leader.
Character: Unfortunately, this appears to have been a rather elusive quality. We were told that this was a symbol or a role for an actor which we knew wouldn't work, and the only hint of something of substance pointed towards moral excellence. As we later discovered, this can be a rather fluid concept.

Honesty: This trait seemed an obvious one, and proved less so. Our search here left us with "an adherence to the facts". Unfortunately for our search, the "facts" in politics often seem to be subject to interpretation (and sometimes some serious spinning).

Leadership: This led us to a definition of "a person of commanding authority or influence". While seemingly good on the surface, this definition left no room for the direction of this leadership, and the world has too often been led down the wrong path by people of commanding authority.

Moral: This was our most slippery term, though we did find, "Sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment". Unfortunately for this search, counting on the conscience and judgement of a politician is often an exercise in futility. In the end, we were left with the fact that 'moral' may have been the wrong word, and that we needed to move on in order to reach our goal.

Wisdom: Here for the first time, we saw some light at the end of the tunnel, when we found, "Marked by deep understanding, keen discernment, and a capacity for sound judgment". There is little doubt that this would be something that we would like to see in politics and candidates (and far too rarely do).

Ethics: Here again, we found something to sink our teeth into with, "The principles of conduct governing an individual or a group". A candidate should have an abiding sense of principles that act as a guide for their actions. For myself, I would prefer that they drew these principles from the Founding Fathers, The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution of the United States.

Perhaps the very elusiveness of these qualities is what makes choosing a candidate or a leader so difficult. Perhaps the problem is the "profession of politics", with a group of potential power seekers using professional speech writers, political handlers, and spin masters to further confuse us and make these choices even more difficult. Perhaps even when we can agree that the qualities of both Wisdom and Ethics are necessary for a candidate or leader, being able to recognize these qualities through the cult of personality built around candidates these days is extremely difficult. Then again, nobody ever said that democracy was going to be easy (OK, Representative Republic). It took the Founding Fathers 3 years to come up with the system of government that now gets abused after the Revolutionary War ended, and only after having abandoned the Articles of Confederation that they had originally come up with. I suppose that if the people wise enough to design a form of government that has lasted for over 200 years in this country struggled with it, that we can cut ourselves a little slack over the process.

I have to tell you though, that this Quest has worn me out. Exhausted, road weary and sore at heart, I think that I will seek instead that most desired by the Knights of Ni:

"Bring me a shrubbery!"

The Search For Political Ethics

"Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends..."

Once simply part of an Emerson, Lake, and Palmer song, this now appears to be the theme song for my never-ending quest to find the qualities worth seeking in a political candidate. Quite frankly, Indiana Jones (who also just keeps coming back) has had better luck finding stuff than I have. (Then again, perhaps objects of art and history are less rare than such qualities in political candidates.) Undaunted by this however (OK, maybe a little bit), I am back at this search in the hopes of bringing it to a quick end.

A few weeks back, we looked the concept of sound moral judgment as being a good and necessary quality to seek, and discovered that in fact that what we were looking for was an ethical person rather than a moral one. After waiting to let the dust settle a bit, I decided to take up the subject of the quality of ethical behavior as one that a candidate should have and see if this time we were on the right side of the line between morals and ethics. Continuing this journey with our handy, dandy reference book, the Meriam Webster dictionary, we find the following:

Conforming to accepted standards of conduct - I'm not sure that I like this definition at all. Some pretty stupid, contradictory, and down right evil standards of conduct have been accepted throughout history. As much as I think that there is money to be made in bringing back the Salem witch trials as a "pay per view event", I think I would like something more to use as a goal worth seeking.

Involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval - This definition sounds like judgment by way of the town busybody. I'm afraid that I have to believe that this one falls into the same category as our first definition, and is therefore equally flawed. I hve to believe that we need a consistent, higher standard than anything as changing as moral approval.

A System of moral values: a theory or set of moral principles - This definition strikes a little closer to the mark. Much like the Declaration of Independence did for the Federal Government, a candidate should have a set of principles which guide them and a set of values to fall back on. We still need to be careful of that word moral though, it's a dangerous double-edged sword that often seems to have no master.

The principles of conduct governing an individual or a group - This is ultimately what we want a candidate or a political party to have, assuming of course that we agree with such principles. At least then, we can debate something of substance, something that has some relevance in this process. Whether we want to use The Ten Commandments or The Constitution as the guide, we need to know what it is that an elected official will use when deciding right and wrong.

This whole morals vs ethics thing has come up in recent days on a number of blogs that I read. As a guy who spent a good part of his college days sitting in a mind-numbing array of philosophy courses (and yes, it is part of the reason that I ended up this way), I treat this with a great deal of seriousness. Being moral allowed an Egyptian pharoah to slay first born children, allowed Vikings to toss prisoners into pits of starving wolves for entertainment, allowed Romans to have human beings to fight to the death for entertainment, and allowed people to "own" other people throughout most of history. This moving landscape of ethical relativism has written off a surprising amount of stupdidity and evil in the name of moral behavior and I refuse to accept it.

Ethics on the other hand is an unchanging, but not rigid standard of right and wrong behavior. Such things as lying, cheating, stealing, and imposing our will on our fellow man by use of force are always going to be wrong. There will always be exceptions to such rules, dictated by the often dire needs of the moment; but these should be rare and performed knowing that even such exceptions carry personal consequences for those involved.

Well at the very least, I think that we have finally found something to seek out teeth into. If a candidate has no other qualities, perhaps it is essential that they have this one. But enough of this. When next we take this up (I mean I take it up, I wouldn't want to blame you for any part of this), I will try to sum up some of what has come before and draw some conclusions from our efforts.

Note: Forget the crystal skull, what I would really like Indiana Jones to find is a political candidate with anything "in" his skull, but maybe that's just me...

OK Wiseguy

OK Ladies and Gentlemen, it's time once again to touch on the subject of qualities that we should look for in a political candidate or office holder. I know that by now you are probably getting sick of thinking about this (and equally tired of me writing about it), but hey this stuff is important. 

Now you can call me silly, but I think that one of the self-evident qualities that a person who seeks or holds power is to be wise. I'm not talking about knowledge here, and maybe not even intelligence (though that would certainly be considered a refreshing plus). Smart people are still capable of doing dumb things. I'm talking about the ability to assimilate the available information and, as a representative of a constituency, make wise decisions. 

As always, I am going back to my handy reference guide, the online Merriam Webster dictionary. (Good thing that I am using the online version, as I might have otherwise worn the pages out on this thing.)  

Insolent, smart-alecky, or fresh Evidencing or hinting at the possession of inside information - Is it just me, or do you feel like this one is about smoke filled rooms and back alley deals. Quite frankly, I think many politicians possess inside information, and are both insolent and smart-alecky (which, by the way, is another one of those words that I never knew existed). Perhaps the power, or the seeking of it makes people that way.It be a fault in most professional politicians, but I think that we can agree that it is nothing to seek in one.

Skilled in magic or divination - This has come up before in our discussions and cannot be considered a good thing. I would rather choose someone not looking into a crystal ball or the cards for our future, and it seems like every time someone pulls a rabbit out of the hat, I have to pay to feed and shelter the poor little bunny for the rest of its days. No, political slight of hand is far too much a part of everyday politics and never bodes well for the voter.

Marked by deep understanding, keen discernment, and a capacity for sound judgment -Oh yeah, now we're getting somewhere. There is little doubt that this is an essential quality in a candidate. Sure we need to agree that the understanding and discernment need to be about doing the job that they are seeking, and not simply being well versed in how to play the game to their own advantage; but that should be easy, right? As for the sound judgment part, I can't say that I am surprised that judgment is part of the discussion and expect it to come up again. Well this is progress. I think we can agree that we have something here that we can hang our hat on. This may not mean that we can actually find this quality in a candidate, but even knowing what to look for helps. Let's see where the next one takes us in a couple of weeks. 

The Moral Dilemma

Welcome to another of the seemingly endless (and perhaps pointless) attempts to find the qualities of a good political candidate. As we continue this forced march to the November election, the next quality that I would like to touch on is that a candidate should be of "good moral judgment". Continuing scandals at almost every level of government may lead us to believe that such a thing is a vain search. But before we go too far down that road, let's at least give it a try by turning to our ready reference at Merriam Webster.  

Perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect This can't be what we are looking for, as it seems mostly like gibberish. If it has any meaning at all, it would be to say that the candidate "feels" like the right one rather than saying one "thinks" that this is the right one. I'm not sure I want to go down that path, as this seems to lead us back to the cult of personality that we have discussed before. I think that I would rather use logic to pick a candidate than my gut. 

Probable though not proved 
This may even be worse. This implies a doubt in the suitability of a candidate, rather than an affirmation of suitability. I have a doubt about all politicians in general as it is. I would like something more proven if it's all the same to you. -  
Conforming to a standard of right behavior 
This one seems to be the one at first glance, but what is "right behavior"? It was right behavior for Crusaders to kill Muslims in the name of their God. It was right behavior for the Spanish Inquisition (which nobody expected, by the way) to kill any kind of "unbelievers" in the name of theirs. It is considered right behavior today by some Muslims to do the same. No, I am far from ready to accept this as a standard.  

Capable of right and wrong action 
No I don't think this one helps. Of course one can be capable of right and wrong action. The only other alternative is no action at all, something we often hope for from politicians. For the most part, when they aren't doing anything, they aren't making things worse.  

Sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment 
I think that this is what we are looking for, but I am not sure that the two parts always go together. A conscience leaves some leeway that I'm not prepared to give. It will allow someone to do something awful, and simply feel bad about it. Ethical judgment, on the other hand, is something to be sought not only in politics, but in all aspects of life. It is certainly something that someone who seeks to lead should have.

Well, this search has been more successful than most, though it seems that what we are looking for is actually an 'ethical' candidate, more than a 'moral' one. Since ethics has always seemed to be more of an unchanging standard than morals are, that's OK with me. I won't quibble over the words as long as there is something here of substance that we can use as a guidepost. Maybe we are finally on the right track, and there is something to this search after all. Of course, this probably means that we need to look up ethical (but not now).

 

Leader of the Band

Here we are again, continuing our seeming never ending journey of how to find the good candidate or office holder. Now a good candidate should be someone who would make a good leader (Why elect them otherwise?), so this time I would like on what it means to be a leader. Oh brother, this means we better go back again to the Merriam Webster dictionary to discover the meaning of the word "leader". (Will it never end?) A leader is: 

A blank section at the beginning or end of a reel of film or recorded tape 
Many political candidates could be considered to be the equivalent of a blank piece of tape (or an empty suit, take your pick), but I'm not sure that's who I should want to pick for the running of the country.

Something for guiding fish into a trap 
The concept of guiding seems like a good one to me, except of course, if you're the fish. Many times I feel like candidates are attempting to lead me into a trap that they will spring on me after being elected, and that they believe that I am too dumb to see it coming. Some actually manage to fool me. Sorry, but I can't see this as a quality to be sought in a used car salesman, let alone a political candidate.

A first or principal performer of a group 
This too has a certain ring of truth to it. The concept of candidate and performer has come up before in our research, and while actors have become politicians (and vise-versa), I would prefer someone who isn't "performing". While I believe that acting like a leader is important, I don't believe that it's the same thing as being one. I suspect that it isn't.
 

A horse placed in advance of the other horses of a team 
Well, political parties could be considered as teams, their candidates are the ones up front, and these are called "races" after all. But while this is clever as a word game, I'm not sure I want to play the ponies with the future of my government at stake. Besides, who decides who gets to do the placing? (... and when we are talking about political candidates are we placing horses or just their asses out front?)

A person who has commanding authority or influence 
This probably comes as close to the truth we are looking for as anything, though it scares me. It seems to me to smack of the cult of personality in candidate selection. Again, this is something that we have seen time and time again in politics; and if this is our definition we should be afraid. Past journeys down this road have led to unpleasant destinations. (Napoleon and Hitler come to mind in the category of such mistakes.)

Man, I am really starting to wonder about this whole search. Every time we define a quality that should be admirable or necessary in a political candidate, we either can't define it in any meaningful way or the definitions that we can find are ones that we wouldn't care to have in a candidate. I am beginning to question my reasons for continuing this search. 

(But have no fear, I will pick this up again in two weeks ...) 

Honesty

Resuming my self-education in the qualities to be sought in a political candidate or officeholder (something I plan on continuing in the days moving up to the election), I found myself wrestling with the concept of honesty. Now many say that the honesty and politics are mutually exclusive categories, and I have to admit that there are times that I agree with them (especially lately). Regardless of its apparent scarcity however, we search for it almost desperately as we attempt to find our elected representatives. Going to my tried and true source of information (OK, not so much for the rites / rights thing, but I already owned up to that mistake), the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, I found the following:

Sincerity 
This is a interesting definition, but I'm not sure that it means what it once did. If this is the definition that we are going to use (and I have to admit that it does have some value), I have to ask whether we are looking for sincerity of statement and purpose or merely the appearance of sincerity. I have to say that most of the time it doesn't seem to make any difference to anyone. In addition, I would ask that if we do want to make this distinction (and it is an important one), how are we to know the difference in these days of the speech writer, political operative, and the mainstream media having their way with us? 

Fairness and straightforwardness of conduct 
This seems a bit muddled as well. Quite frankly I didn't even know that straightforwardness was a word until I saw it there. Attaching this mouthful to the concept of conduct in an age that sees Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears as normal is simply bizarre. As for fairness, that word seems to have lost meaning long ago, especially in the arena of politics. Fairness is what the person using the word believes it to be, which usually means whatever provides their side with an advantage. I can't say that I find this laudable, admirable, or to be desired in a candidate.
 
Adherence to the facts 
I like this one a lot, but what are the facts and how are we to judge adherence to them? Facts, like statistics, seem to be things that are interpreted to bolster preconceived notions these days, in politics and in life. The term often becomes meaningless when those "facts" are viewed through the lenses being used, either rose colored or jaded. Sometimes, it appears that we are even allowed to stretch the facts to make a point for the "greater good" (just ask Al Gore). If facts have little or no meaning, adhering to them would appear to be either impossible or pointless.

So here in our 2nd voyage of discovery for the desired traits of a political candidate or office holder, we sadly find that we are once again to be disappointed. Like character, it appears that the concept of honesty which we seek is to a great extent both ethereal and illusory. Deep down, we all seem to know what it should mean, but how to find or judge it today in a political candidate seems to escape us. If anyone has a suggestion out there, I'm certainly willing to listen to it. In the meantime, I'm not sure that I can say it any better than Billy Joel ... 

"Honesty is such a lonely word. Everyone is so untrue. Honesty is hardly ever heard. And mostly what I need from you."

 

Character

This being an election year, we are lectured regularly on the need for character in our candidates. We are told that character is in fact essential in a good political leader or candidate. Since this appears to be so important a trait and since I want to vote for the right kind of candidate, I decided that the best thing to do would be to look up the word in the dictionary. Much to my chagrin, Merriam Webster shows a number of different definitions of the word.

1. A symbol (as a letter or number) that represents information. Nope, I don't think that this is it, unless the man formerly known as Prince is running for something or if you are running for mayor of Sesame Street.
2. The aggregate of distinctive qualities of a breed, strain, or type. Nope, this sound like some form or racial profiling to me, so I am SURE that this cannot be what they are talking about.
3. The personality or part which an actor recreates. Now this one has some possibilities, as I am always convinced that politicians are always acting in public (and of course some actors have become politicians); but somehow this doesn't strike me as an ideal to strive for.
4. A short literary sketch of the qualities of a social type. More references to racial profiling, this time seemingly by documenting social status. Though it seems to me that only rich people can afford to run for political office, again I doubt that this is an enviable trait or one to be sought after.
5. Moral excellence and firmness. Oh this has got to be it, though I can only say this with a sense irony. While I freely admit that morals, unlike ethics, change with time and society; I refuse to believe that we have sunk to a level that the behavior exhibited by most politicians today could be called excellent or firm. Consistent maybe, but only in the way that one can say that tornadoes consistently damage property.

So maybe what everyone is trying to tell us is that the most important trait in a political candidate (or office holder) is something which we simply cannot define, and if we could, cannot actually have. I have to say that this is a disappointment to me. How am I to cast my vote properly in the upcoming elections in November? How are we to have those in office with the very trait that the political parties, and the candidates themselves, feel is so important? Why are they trying to make this so damn confusing?

Perhaps someone else out there has the answer and will share with the rest of us...

Though never a political candidate, nor aspiring to such office I have been told from time to time that I "am" a character, and I was never quite sure what was meant by it. Having done this research and looking back on it now, I suppose that I would have to go with #2. Some might additionally go so far as to say that I am a flawed character, though a flawed "aggregate of distinctive qualities" seems somewhat contradictory to me. Then again, perhaps it's the flaws that make me distinctive. Hey I like that!

Presidential Candidates - Royalty (?)

I find myself offended by the current crop of presidential candidates referring to themselves in the royal plural. It doesn't matter which candidate or which party they belong to, they are all doing it. Now maybe this is simply a figure of speech; but if it is, it needs to change. In spite of the fact that all of them are running as individuals (well, almost all of them) this constant referring to themselves individually as "we" is just flat-out annoying.

This country was founded on the rejection of the concept of royalty. (Are you listening Kennedys?) When the title of monarch was offered to the first president, he turned it down resoundingly. Likewise, George Washington left office after one term, lest a precedent of apparent royalty be created in the office.


So my message to these candidates is to "STOP IT". Either refer to yourself in the first person singular, or gain enough weight to allow us some reason to question .


("We" will take on the concept of athletes referring to themselves in the third person another time.)

That's Not Right #3 - Candidates

There is a TV commercial currently making the rounds that is put on by the folks at Dividedwefall.org. It's supposed to tug at our heartstrings by using children to tell us what kind of candidates that they would vote for if they were only old enough to vote.  

First of all let me say that once again, a liberal organization is shamelessly using children to promote their agenda, a practice which is truly beginning to sicken me. (though I am not looking for government health care to treat this illness)  

Second, there is little doubt that these are well-coached child actors who would normally not know the first thing about the issues that they are speaking about or be able to voice their opinions so coherently if they were not working off of a script written by someone with an agenda.  

Third, since these are in fact children, with very little exposure to the realities of life, why in heaven's name would I use their opinion (even if I agreed with it) to guide my voting preferences?  

OK, three strikes, you're out! I am really getting tired of any group, liberal or conservative, hiding behind children in order to get their message heard. If you believe in the message, stand behind it yourself and be proud. Don't take a cowards approach of using children as a shield. I am equally tired of the story that the job of elected officials or of the government is to take care of the citizens. 

While it has been a while since I have taken a civics class (hell, they probably don't even call them that any more), it seems to me that I remember that elected officials are sent to represent constituents, and that only. I don't care whether the cause is fixing health care or saving an endangered toad, the government exceeds its authority when it attempts such things. The Constitution defines not only the responsibilities of government, but the limits of it. If the citizens do not like those limits, they have the right and responsibility to change that document; and they have a mechanism (Amending) with which to do so. 

When are we going to recognize that it is not the government's job to supplant the care given by family, friends, or the simple generosity of perfect strangers in caring for each other? 

When are we going to recognize that it has always been the spirit of self reliance and stubborn pride in our own accomplishments that has made this country great?

So for all of you organizations out there trying to influence, cajole, persuade, or threaten me; for all of you groups that have a social agenda to push on me; for all of you who wish to tug on my heartstrings in order to change this country's government into something antithetical to the design of its Founding Fathers; let me tell you that you need not bother. I am after all a conservative, and one with a very libertarian point of view. It should therefore be readily apparent to you that I have no heart.

Run and Hide, The Candidates Are Coming!

Fall is in the air and the leaves are turning. Harvests and hayrides are the order of the day. Halloween is right around the corner (unless you live in Oak Lawn, IL where it has been banned), and then ... another election. 

Prepare yourself therefore for the onslaught of politics and political commercials. Keep the duct tape handy and the aspirin within reach people, we are about to be bombarded with an endless stream of political commercials. Designed to in 60 seconds give us a warm and fuzzy feeling about the candidate, these tedious and boring bits of television do nothing but the opposite. 

Full of cute children, smiling senior citizens, and applauding supporters, they attempt to show each candidate as being "of the people", and mostly fail miserably. Ripe with pointless platitudes, feel good sound bites, and staged video clips; these ads prove that there are a lot of really bad advertising agencies out there. 

Ending with the candidate earnestly looking into the camera and telling us who they are and that they in fact said this, only reinforces the knowledge that someone wrote everything out for that candidate and that in most cases they are not even capable of reading their lines properly. 

Is it just me, or do they all run together in very short order to the point that you don't know what any candidate stands for, which party they are part of, or which office they are running for? ...AND YOU DON'T CARE! 

If you are a candidate out there preparing these messages for the coming election, I can only say one thing to you ... PLEASE DON'T!  

OK, you can't do that and win an election, so try these:  

- Humor sells, try and keep it light and entertaining and we might remember you. 

- Leave your family at home. We assume that you have one, and that they might even like you from time to time; but we're not voting for them.  

- Don't tell us who endorses you. We know that a quid pro quo comes with that and it will only turn us against you.  

- Whatever you do, don't tell us you are or used to be a lawyer. We've got enough of those in politics already and they haven't done us any favors. (OK, maybe we'll make an exception here it you're running for judge; but that's it.) 

- Stop promising us things that you have no intention of doing or couldn't do even if you wanted to. We're getting really tired of that and you might be the candidate that we decide to draw the line on.

- Don't run your ads quite so often. Repeating the BS over and over until we all want to die a slow death by paper cuts doesn't make make it true or make us believe it. It does however, make us really annoyed with you.  

I'll tell you what, let's all vote for the candidates who come on the air with nothing but really short commercials. They can smile and tell us which office they are running for, that they don't want to bore us with crap that we won't believe anyway, and fade to black. Fifteen seconds and out, cheaper for them and better for us. As Glenn Beck says, "Wouldn't that be great?"  

By the way, the aspirin and duct tape work particularly well as a preventative measure if you stuff the aspirin in your ears and duct tape them in place.