Posted on 12/12/2006 2:44:25 PM PST by shrinkermd
It has been a discouraging time for many of us on Free Republic. Besides losing an election we now must select a Presidential candidate. We know we are up against both the Democrats and the mainstream media. Surely it is time to think through who we want and why.
As 2008 approaches we will ask candidates, “Why are you running for office?”
Some stumble but most will answer this question in one of two ways. Either they will claim a desire “to serve the people” or they will conservative issues they support.
Adding personal and professional biographical material may flesh out an understanding of previous life experiences, but the answer as to why they are running remains unanswered.
What is missing is the candidate’s personal motivation for seeking office.
Journalists, pundits and the public are reluctant to contemplate, inquire or discuss personal motivation. To contemplate such motivation seems unnecessarily prying and asking about it downright indecent.
Obviously no candidate can be expected to reveal his deepest experiences and secrets. In spite of this, in a general way, we can assess motivation.
Humans are goal oriented social beings who are capable of choice. If they choose to run for office you can assume among other things they are running for recognition.
Like many truisms, we usually don’t think of recognition as an important motivating goal. Recently David Brooks wrote a short article in the New York Times called “All Politics is Thymotic.” In this short article Brooks summarized Plato’s thoughts on recognition.
Plato sees the need for recognition (thymos) as central to understanding why people seek leadership positions. Similarly, recognition is seen as a powerful motivator for many human activities.
As Brooks summarizes Plato, “Men want others to recognize their significance. They want to feel important and be part of something important.” For sure, this desire for recognition can miscarry and become a thirst for glory regardless of cost. The desire for recognition results in both worthy and unworthy behavior.
Plato also sees us as desiring group as well as personal recognition. Political parties, religions and other social groups demand respect and dignity. We seek leaders to achieve group goals and among these goals is a sense of justice. The voiceless, downtrodden and ignorant also eventually find leaders who demand justice.
Plato believes the search for recognition (Thymos) is the basis for political action. People will sacrifice for personal glory. They will also sacrifice for causes greater than themselves. Like all of us candidates crave recognition as means to enhance self-esteem and self-worth..
Others discussing Plato find that Plato’s Thymos includes a desire for pride, self-esteem, distinction and excellence. Plato felts that satisfying these desires resulted in a fulfilled life. Life will then have a purpose and not just be a matter of surviving, reproducing and experiencing pleasure. Achieving a full life permits us to make contributions that continue beyond our meager lifespan.
Plato’s theories may mix up goals and responses but his 2400 year old observations still reflect human nature. Politicians do strive for recognition. As members of political parties, religions and a nation we also strive for success, relevance and respect. We do base our individual and cultural self-esteem on the actualization of these goals. And, we also do seek recognition in activities unrelated to politics.
When we assess candidates we should look for clear evidence of a desire for recognition as well as a desire for distinction and excellence. If the candidate claims just to be an ordinary person we should look elsewhere. We need leaders who can lead, relish in leading and are unapologetic about leading.
If nothing else, perhaps it is time to quit asking our politicians to feign false humility or pander to poll-selected party requirements. Perhaps it is best to assume candidates seekers are striving for recognition, excellence and power sufficient to meet both individual and group goals. Perhaps we should celebrate these qualities rather than decry them. We might even ask about them without hesitation and guilt.
Plato’s teacher was Socrates who once said, “The shortest and surest way to live with honor is to be in reality what you appear to be." If we accept candidates as they are, we permit them to be honorable men and women. Striving for recognition is not self-centered attention getting; it is a natural and honorable pursuit common to us all.
(1)Brooks, David. “All Politics Is Thymotic,” New York Times. URL: http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F50B1EF935550C7A8DDDAA0894DE404482.
(2)Wikipedia url is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato.
(3)Dr. Steir’s notes: http://ih51.stier.net/notes/overview.htm.
I tried to make these links work like a real blogger, but I am not a blogger and you will have to copy and paste.
Dropped LIST from original.
It doesn't really matter what their motivations are, since 99% of them turn out the same in the end: criminals living off my paycheck.
I ran for a local public office this year. In the process, I got to know other politicians, in mine and other races, as well as Democrats and Republicans. The common thread among all candidates was a desire to win that overwhelmed all decency and totally subjugated integrity. In fact, integrity was a true impediment, but the appearance of integrity an absolute necessity. With only one glaring exception, deceit and duplicity ruled. I know that some may answer to a higher calling of public service, but I sure as heck couldn't tell one from the other until I got into bed with them.
My dad said it a bit differently: If a man, who is known by you to be a crook, is running for office against someone known by you to be honest then vote for the crook. You don't want to corrupt an honest man.
The answer is in the way the question is phrased. The question is focused on the PRESIDENTIAL RACE.
We conservatives believe that most power should not be in the central government. The power should be in the private citizens, or as close to them as possible in state and local government.
By definition government is that institution in society that has the power of COERCION to FORCE people to jump when it says jump. Thus megalomaniacs have the "fire in the belly" to run winning campaigns and continually seek more power in the office they hold, and by seeking ever more powerful offices.
In contrast, we who just want the government to leave us alone have no stomach for weilding power over our neighbors. The result is that few of us seek local political office. When we do, we seldom have the motivation to do what it takes to win. Our family, church, etc are too important to us to plan our whole life around seeking office as the megalomaniacs do.
And when we do win, we rarely use it as a stepping stone to higher office. Thus, we lack a bench from which to send players into the big game.
What the conservative movement needs is a "religious order" of those who are willing to sacrifice their personal lives to save the constitution and our freedoms. Many of us volunteered for the military out of that sense of service to our fredoms. We need to develop that same sense of dedication in an order of politicians who will go into political battle to save our freedoms.
I believe Milton Friedman wrote a book about this.
I think there is a lot of wisdom in this. America's Founders strove for what they called "fame"...perhaps significance would be a better word. But many of them were up front about that. And we haven't seen a generation like them since that time. A desire for recognition/fame/significance is not all bad. I'm not sure that our society pretending that it isn't there is healthy, at all.
When a young student reads The Iliad they encounter the desire for the fame and it makes them uncomfortable. The reason it does is b/c they want it also, but they can't admit it. The heroes in the epic admit it quite openly, and they find that shocking.
Darn. I was thinking of throwing my hat into the ring. Given the current choices in the Republican Party, I figured I had a good chance!
What the next Presidential candidate needs to win is to be somebody who can appeal beyond the base of their party. A candidate who can't win beyond the primaries is a sure recipe for defeat. Social conservatives, take note.
Yes, I see that discomfort as well. I think it is a function of the high priority we place on "humility." Why we should vote or support a person who does not feel he is uniquely and overwhelmingly qualified for an elective office remains puzzling.
Nonetheless, if you ask the ordinary person he will ascribe "humility" right up there with honesty as a qualification for office. Of course, politicians and candidates recognize this and do everything to conceal their desire for recognition. Not healthy for them or for us.
I think you want to reflect on the difference between humility and timidity. Ronald Reagan certainly wasn't timid; he believed in himself and he made others believe in him.At the same time, Reagan was not arrogant, either. Arrogance is when you are wrong, but not in doubt. Humility is respecting your own limitations. History shows that when Reagan believed he was right, he actually was right. That is entirely different from being a "know-it-all."
Humility is actually the virtuous middle between arrogance and timidity. Humility is when the conservative politiician advocates market solutions because government solutions come from the arrogant assumption that the people who have experience actually providing goods and services are stupid.
IMHO.
One of the founders, maybe Washington or Franklin, said that the chief disqualifier for any political candidate is his desire to hold the office.
Deep wisdom, that.
There, fixed it. And no, "statesmen" does not exlude women, either.
to the top for later
Sorry, I misunderstood your post.
I do not regard Saudi Arabia financing mosques, Muslims schools and the costs of getting Muslims into our nation as an international matter. It is very much domestic. It is effectively an attempt by a foreign power to colonize our nation. The Muslim immigrant population into our nation has exploded this decade. Already, the Saudi backed social-political organization (CAIR) established in our nation for Muslims is stirring trouble.
The issue of abortion is very important, but no less important is protecting the lives of our citizens and our way of life. I put it another way. I see no greater threat developing within our nation today, to the born and unborn alike, than the Islamic Jihad that is already here and growing in strength.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.