The Conscientious Voter (Part 2: Criteria)

Our Vote Matters In November

As we stagger toward the upcoming November elections here in the United States, I am daily reminded of the stakes.  Our elected leaders clearly are not simple ornamental bushes planted atop the substantial bureaucratic soil that nourishes and keeps our society running smoothly.  At certain times congressional representatives, senators, governors, and presidents could make speeches and appear on talk shows but have little effect on our daily lives.  On the occasional chance that legislation might be passed or significant decisions made, the result rarely mattered a whole lot.  In the same way, inaction in D.C. at times is often as much a blessing as a problem.

Now, however, is not such a time.  During days of pandemic, social unrest, economic decline, threats abroad, and deteriorating international cooperation, the quality of our leaders matters a great deal.  Their decisions, deportment, and speeches have become singularly influential with respect to daily life (or death).

Setting Criteria

If an election is a type of employment selection process as I argued back in March, one of the key issues I face in fulfilling my duty as a citizen is determining what my hiring criteria will be.  In Part 1 of this series I suggested that the following categories might serve to organize the characteristics of the ideal candidate I might be looking for.

• Knowledge
• Skills
• Political & Economic Philosophy
• Values
• Character
• Leadership
• Habits of mind
• Physical aptitude (if relevant)

Physical Aptitude

The last category is probably not very important in choosing the best candidate for a government office.  Physical aptitude often has little relevance to most elected positions.  Franklin Roosevelt managed to lead the nation during the Great Depression and World War II while in a wheel chair.  But a case could be made that stamina under intense stress could be important to high level leadership.

Knowledge & Skill

Relevant knowledge and skills are generally developed through both formal education and experience with parallel kinds of roles.  Both are helpful to the ideal candidate.  But in our rapidly changing society such assets are not as helpful as they might seem.  In roles such as governor and president, there will be huge gaps in anyone’s knowledge that must be filled in by experts with specialized information.  And while management and political experience are invaluable, they are no guarantee of success when the context changes.  Still, it would be foolish to hire a civic leader at the executive level without some proven knowledge relevant to the task.

Proposed Initiatives

I know many who review the list of categories above would be puzzled by the lack of mention of what is often the most discussed factor during a campaign. When not slinging mud at the opponent, politicians generally discuss how their own agenda for the coming years is so much better than the proposals of their opponent. It think it true that proposals are important, but not for the reasons generally assumed. The fact is, most of these proposals will never see the light of day after the elections because the pressures of a changing world or the realities of the political environment make them impractical, inappropriate, or naive.

Proposals, however, give the voter a pretty clear view of two important factors: (1) the candidates dominant political philosophy and (2) the values of the candidate. Both of these factors are far more salient than ephemeral and speculative programs or policies.

Philosophy

Some would argue that the candidate’s political and economic philosophy is the most important criteria to evaluate when choosing a civic leader.  Identifying the political philosophy of a person seeking office can be very helpful in deciding on how to vote.  Though pet programs may come and go, an office holder with a clear philosophy will have a tendency to generate new ideas that conform to their worldview.  A libertarian will tend to work to reduce the size of government and its intervention in the lives of citizens.  A liberal will tend to leverage government to solve societal problems.  

But it’s important to consider  how ideologically entrenched the person is.  There are elements of truth in a variety of different approaches to governance. Purists can cause problems.  My own view is that ideologues (those whose philosophy is the most hardened and entrenched) tend to be the least capable of leading in a diverse democratic system.  Democracy demands compromise in order to get anything done.  Extreme views that reflect only one positions often result is failure to achieve goals.  

Philosophical positions can also change over time.  Experience, truly listening to other views, reading, circumstances, and time can change a person.  We make a mistake, I believe, when we put people in a box defined by their younger, less-experienced selves.  Indeed, if a person never changes over time, I would worry about their openness to learning.  That, in itself might be a disqualification.

That said, I would want to vote for someone with leanings in the general direction I believe the nation, state or community should go. While Abraham Lincoln was constantly adjusting to the many competing constituencies he was trying to hold together, he consistently represented abolitionist leanings. Though he was constantly infuriating anti-slavery purists within his party such as Wm. Lloyd Garrison, he did not betray his vision of a free and united nation.

Lincoln’s pre-election commitment to the abolitionist policies of the newly formed Republican party didn’t just indicate something of his governing philosophy. It also betrayed his values. And with that, we are coming to the heart of what we ought to be looking for in a candidate.

The voter in 1860 would likely have noted that Lincoln was politically inexperienced (though he proved himself a gifted practitioner as his administration unfolded). He had little formal educational preparation. His career had mostly been carried out on the frontier of civilization in Illinois. While he was an eloquent speaker, he didn’t have a lot going for him. But those who voted for him saw in him the backbone and character they were looking for. He would be a leader of genuine character, a man they could trust.

Character

Based on my experience as a hiring manager, I would argue that the criteria that are left are the most important. Rarely can they be taught to a senior person while in office.  A person’s character, values, habits of mind, leadership qualities may be tough to discern, but they will make the difference between success and failure in office.  The wise voter will clearly list what they would like to see in the candidate’s past and present life that speaks to the bedrock of the kind of person he or she is.  Putting the wrong kind of individual in office, irrespective of the person’s other credentials, ideas, or stump speeches can be a recipe for disaster in times of crisis such as we are now in.

My next blog in this series will look more closely at the values and habits of life that constitute what we call character.