Many Americans—and especially those who see themselves as conservative—identify "rugged individualism" as a quintessential American characteristic. There is deep-seated admiration for those who make their own way in life, who set out to forge their individual path to success. However, the truth is that a nation cannot be truly successful if everyone is heading off in their own direction without regard to anyone else. At a certain point Americans need to come together as one nation and unite to address the many serious problems facing the country. After all, we live in community with one another, not in isolation. To succeed in the War on Terror, to solve the Social Security crisis, to finally address our failed immigration policies, Americans are going to have to work together for the common good. Strong leadership will be required to create the unity and the consensus necessary to develop solutions to difficult problems.
So far there seems to be considerable doubt in the minds of the American people as to who among the current crop of presidential candidates has the requisite leadership abilities to solve our country's problems. After having had many months to think it over, many members of both parties seem especially excited about candidates who are not even in the race: Fred Thompson and Al Gore. Everyone knows that a strong leader with vision will be required to bring the nation together and start leading it in the right direction. While one would not want to fall prey to messianic delusions—imagining that there is a man or woman who could effortlessly unite everyone and lead us into a utopian future—it is nevertheless true that a strong leader in the right place and at the right time can have an historic impact.
When considering the slate of presidential candidates, three qualities are especially important. The first is principled leadership. A strong leader needs to identify the principles that will inform their decision making and stand by those principles even when it is politically inexpedient. In the last election the Republican Party claimed to be the party of family values, moral principle and fiscal conservatism; yet when political expediency or personal ambition got in the way of those principles, the principles went out the window. Voters saw dishonesty and corruption and scandal in the party, and voted accordingly. They recognized hypocrisy when they saw it, and they didnt like it. The reality of politics may require strategic political compromises, but elected official should not compromise their principles. Candidates should be upfront and honest about the principles that animate them, and voters should assess whether the candidates have a track record of demonstrated fidelity to those principles.
Second, America needs a leader who can cast a vision and bring people together in pursuit of that vision. Some presidential candidates seem to have a policy position on every possible issue, but no overall vision for where America should be headed. Some candidates are veritable founts of facts and figures; they revel in data and statistics. But Americans should not mistake policy wonks for leaders. A leader needs to be able to see the big picture, understand the fundamental problems, and inspire people with a solution. Vision—the next President needs to have it.
Third, a good leader must be authentic. Too many candidates today think leadership is finding a parade and getting out in front of it. For these candidates, polling prevails over principle. Undoubtedly, that's why more and more candidates are being charged with "flip-flopping" on the issues. "Flip-flopping" creates the impression that a candidate is not leading from principle, but from polling data. It is, of course, not wrong for a politician, over the course of his or her lifetime, to change their position on any number of issues. Anybody who has not changed their mind on anything over an extended period of time probably isn't thinking very seriously about their beliefs. However, voters realize that many candidates for president change their positions not because they have grown to understand new things, but because they have seen the poll numbers and believe that the numbers tell them what must be done to win. Such behavior is evidence that a candidate is insufficiently committed to principle, and lacks a well defined vision. In 2008, we cannot afford a president who is inauthentic.
Comments