http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=E627C901-3048-5C12-00EF0513F183A741 [rquoter] The political mind: Chameleon credos By: Stanley Renshon February 4, 2008 05:41 PM EST The modern presidential campaign is a political junkie’s dream and an average citizen’s nightmare. One can spend days trying to keep up with a virtual flood of political fact, spin and opinion — categories that are not easily distinguished. Those simply trying to choose the best person for that tough and critical job must sort through more information than they can reasonably make sense of. Candidates’ campaigns provide little real help. Their facts are constructed from interpretations spun for a purpose — to present the candidates as they prefer to be seen, not as they really are. Paradoxically, the best sources of counternarratives are rivals’ campaigns, but their interpretations are self-interested and, as a result, hardly objective. The public therefore is left to sort through these conflicting narratives with some sense of what to look for but little real help in finding it. That task is made more difficult by candidates who treat their political personas as accessories that can be regularly changed depending on campaign needs. So, at one point, Hillary Rodham Clinton and her surrogates were complaining that her male competitors were ganging up on her during the debates. At another point, she was touting her experience, strength and reliance because she had weathered the “right-wing attack machine.” More recently, she saw nothing inconsistent in praising her husband’s attempt to help rescue her campaign from her elegant, personable and thoughtful rival Barack Obama. Which is it? Clinton the veteran warrior or Clinton the damsel in distress? It will make a difference to all Americans should she reach the White House. Authenticity is so highly valued in politics because it is in such short supply. It is often sabotaged by the profession’s two major occupational hazards: ambition unanchored by established ideals and values and the felt need to constantly reassure rather than educate the public. In the first case, we get the impression that the candidate will do anything to win office. In the second case, we suspect he or she will say anything. The public is not blameless here, since it wants so many contradictory things. It wants a president who is strong but sensitive, who is principled but open-minded, who stands apart from the crowd but will follow prevailing public sentiment. It wants an ideological soul mate who will force his opponents to submit, all the while deploring the lack of political comity and bipartisanship. With so much at stake and so many powerful conflicting public demands, it is not surprising that more ambitious and pliable candidates succumb. They generally do so in two ways. The first is a candidate’s shifting his policy views to better position himself. Mitt Romney’s shifts from moderate to more conservative positions on a range of issues, such as abortion and immigration, raise the question of where his real views lie. Rather than explain the changes, he has disputed them, leaving potential supporters to wonder which views he really holds. The second is candidates’ using the multiple policy questions that arise with any major issues to try to stake out incompatible positions. If one were to carefully go through Clinton’s stated views and votes on the Iraq war, he could easily discern a foreign policy hawk molting dovish feathers mid-campaign-flight. Using rhetorical hairsplitting to have it both ways makes it difficult to discern the location of the real ground on which the candidate stands. And here we arrive at the crux of authenticity. It matters so much because no president or citizen can predict what this country will face, yet we still need to have someone in office we trust to lead and govern. We cannot expect to predict how a president will react to a Sept. 11 attack or a financial crisis. But we can expect to know his or her real stands on an issue and the honest thinking behind it. This will not occur unless candidates are pressed to move beyond their standard answers. John McCain was recently asked what he would do as president on the subject of citizenship for illegal immigrants once American borders had been secured. He responded by saying that after the United States adopts a tamper-proof ID card that must be presented in order to work, “a lot of people will return home.” However, if most of the estimated 10 million unauthorized immigrants are given such cards as a result of congressional agreement, it is hardly likely to bring about the result to which McCain alludes. The McCain example reminds us that authenticity is not solely a matter of taking contrarian positions or cultivating a maverick persona. It ultimately resides in having the courage to level with the American public not only about your stances but also about your real intentions while laying out the analysis you think supports them. Be clear. Be straight. Explain your thinking and why it deserves support. Be willing to risk and endure disapproval. That is the mark not only of real authenticity but also of something even more important in presidential leadership: character integrity. We should be under no illusions, however, about the necessary salutary political results of either authenticity or character integrity. Being who you present yourself to be and being honest with the public regarding your policy views does not necessarily result in either public approval or policy support. Just ask George W. Bush. Stanley Renshon is a professor of political science at the City University of New York and a certified psychoanalyst.[/rquoter]
