I spent this afternoon introducing my initially reluctant roommate to The West Wing. As I expected it didn’t take long for him to become enamored with the show despite its noticeably absent laugh track. Beyond it’s amazing writing, I feel as though the show is so easily likable in large part because, despite your personal politics, you find yourself wishing that these were the people who actually ran the country. And why exactly is that? And what does that have to do with anything?

Let me first digress.

As I mentioned in my previous post about volunteering, during my final year of college I had occasion to write several letters that were published in our school newspaper. The letters were a bit mean-spirited – and perhaps are cause for a pinch of regret – but at the time I felt morally obligated to write them. You see, at some point during my sophomore year our school held its annual elections for the student government. One girl in particular became fairly well known but ultimately finished in second place. The following year – my junior, and last year – she ran for president of the student body once more. Her platform was undistinguished and once again she lost the election, this time in a distant third. I certainly didn’t vote for her (for reasons that I will get into), but it was not until after she had lost that I felt compelled to act. You see, not two days after the elections took place the school newspaper ran a front page article about this girl. The gist of the story was the announcement that the girl had formed a new student group whose purpose was to address the needs and represent the voice of our student body. Naturally, she was named the president of the group and her vice president was another losing candidate from the newly-ended election. I actually laughed out loud when I read the article over lunch. Immediately after lunch I drafted my first letter to the editor. I declared this new student group completely absurd, and then went so far as to call the girl absurd as well. It was obvious to me that she had effectively attempted to create a second student government, one with the same goals and purpose, but without the annoying hurdle of actually holding an election. I called the girl ridiculous because even though she had proven herself (repeatedly) unable to earn the support of the student body she claimed to represent, she could not stand to be anything less than their leader. I suggested that if she really wanted to help the student body there were any number of ways that she could help within the existing framework of student government, but by creating a new and useless organization – of which she quickly declared herself President – this girl was only managing to firmly prove what many of us had no doubt already suspected. The girl was not after campus change or responsibility, she merely wanted power. What she really wanted was a capitalized bullet point on her post-graduation resume. I implored the girl to just accept her defeat and to please leave the rest of us alone.

Yeah, my letter was a bit mean.

But it gets at the heart of what I’m trying to say with this post. You see, even though elections for student government are inherently ridiculous – in college only slightly less so than in high school – they still manage to give a trace of insight into what we as a democratic electorate want in our representatives. I firmly believe that the girl’s post-election actions were merely an expression of an unvoiced (or under-voiced) pre-and-during-election sentiment. I could sense that the girl was not genuine as a candidate, and she lost accordingly. If only it worked that way in the real world.

It was clear from her background alone that this girl was in the election for the wrong reasons. We all know the type, and hopefully we can all recognize the symptoms: The girl – or boy, though seemingly less so – in high school whose list of extracurriculars was longer than her list of actual classes. The person who absolutely has to be the first person called on by the teacher, who applied to all of their colleges early decision, who cried when they got an A-minus until the teacher relented and gave them a straight A. Despite my high school hopes, these people don’t just go away when you go to college; they run for student body president. And after they’ve graduated they run for actual President.

Despite voting for him in 2004, I felt quite deeply that John Kerry was one of these types. It really bothered me at the time, but the realities of our election process led me to vote for him anyways. The media correctly labeled him an elitist, but what I took that otherwise simple label to mean was that he felt above everyone else and needed a presidency to prove it to us. He wanted to be the President because that would make him the best. He wanted the perks and the power, and if a seat on Air Force One meant occasionally signing a law… well then okay. At heart I believe a significant number of people could sense that about him too, and it cost the Democratic Party an election victory that should have been won with a double-digit margin. In hindsight I sense that the great regret of that election was not in the actual loss, but in the failure of the party to nominate a genuine candidate. Moreover, I strongly believe that the great failing of modern politics is that our candidates are too often, indeed seemingly always, these power-hungry types who care more for their election-earned titles than their election-borne responsibilities. They want the job… just without the job. And so between their election and their seemingly inevitable indictment, the American public loses all faith in the character of our representatives and by extension the system at large.

Which is why it is so easy to fall in love with The West Wing. You may not agree with all of their politics, but you know that the Bartlet administration genuinely cares. As one character on the show, a devoted opponent to the fictional administration, quotes:

“”Say they are smug and superior. Say their approach to public policy makes you want to tear your hair out. Say they like high taxes.and spending your money. Say they want to take your guns and open your borders but don’t call them worthless. . . . The people I have met have been extraordinarily qualified. Their intent is good. Their commitment is true. They are righteous, and they are patriots.”

Basically, you can disagree with someone but still respect them for their conviction.
Authenticity is what counts.

Which brings me to my final point in this long winded blog entry. My previous post ignited a level of discussion that I frankly didn’t expect. Posts on politics tend to shut people up rather than bring out their voice. Maybe it’s because you don’t have anything to say, but I suspect that it may also be in part due to a reluctance to make waves. I hope that’s not the case, and I would appreciate your comments even if, and to be honest, especially if, you wholeheartedly disagree with me. At any rate, Jim brought up a point that I hadn’t really thought about. How do you choose a candidate? For me the process is amazingly simple; so simple in fact that I couldn’t put it into words when I initially tried. It felt like trying to explain algebra to someone who is only just beginning to learn it. “You just solve for X.” It took me a great effort to empathize with my brother when he just couldn’t grasp the concept that X actually represented a number. Seriously, my dad had to resort to literally hitting him with a rubber spatula for the idea to sink in. But I digress…

The reality is that I don’t choose a candidate. It just happens. As time goes on I just know who to vote for. I suggested to Jim that he should pick a few important issues and use those as a general benchmark. And while that is a good idea in terms of deciding a political party, it is an incomplete solution to the problem at hand. All of the Democrats agree on most of the issues, particularly the big ones that would swing a person one way or the other. That is what makes them Democrats. The same is true of the Republican candidates. For example, although I would describe myself as a moderate, I firmly believe in civil rights and social responsibility. I believe that the government exists to protect our freedoms first and our physical safety second. I believe that our government has a moral duty to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, whether they be American citizens or foreign refugees. I believe that the effective reform of our domestic education and health care systems should be a priority over the occupation of oil fields. I believe that America is a part of a larger world system, and that a “What We Say Goes” policy is counterproductive and dangerous. I believe in preventing wars rather than preemptively starting them. I believe in the Constitution as a protection, not an obstacle. I believe that the government exists to serve the needs of its people, and that the people don’t exist to serve the needs of their government.

So I guess that makes me a Democrat.

Obama agrees with me on those points. And so does Hillary Clinton. Edwards and Richardson do too. And yet, I volunteer for Obama. Why? How did I choose him? What makes him better than the rest?

My honest answer is not one of policy. It is a question of character. The short and simple, and ultimately brutally honest answer is that I feel Obama has it (character) and the others don’t. That is a really tough sell, though, and I don’t envy his campaign its challenge. What makes me love him is not something that can be printed on a pamphlet or slapped onto a bumper sticker. You need to hear him speak, watch him move, and observe how he reacts to his world. The girl at Northwestern was a resume seeking a title. George W. Bush was and is the same way (he wants the power First, and is doing great harm to this country in his personal quest to maintain it). Sadly, I get that sense from Hillary Clinton as well. It feels to me that Hillary just wants to be the President. It is the reason she ran for the Senate in New York – because there was an opening. I never got the feeling that she actually cared about the state of New York; certainly there was no sense of ‘a calling’ or debt of responsibility to a state that she had never called home. The sitting senator was not running for re-election, so Hillary called dibs and took the spot. Now the next rung up the ladder has opened up and once more Hillary is screaming “Shotgun!”

Obama is an entirely different creature though. He didn’t become a senator with the intention of becoming a president. Barack saw a need for his state – one, perhaps far more importantly, that he was already attempting to address as a community activist and law professor in inner-city Chicago – and saw the Senate as a means to fighting his fight with more power and effect. During his senatorial campaign, and ever since, he has never once accepted a donation from a special interest. Indeed, in his book he tells a story of how at first he even refused use of the private plane afforded him as a senator. Unfortunately, his hands were largely tied by the Republican’s governmental dominance once he reached the Senate, but even so he managed to score a number of resounding victories for what he believed in. At a time when the entire country was seeing things as “Red versus Blue”, he was crossing the aisle and getting things done. And most importantly of all, when it came time to run for ‘08, I feel that his initial reluctance was genuine. His hesitance wasn’t just born of the usual ‘What if I don’t win?’ variety, but as he himself claimed, “The responsibilities of the Presidency are not to be taken lightly.” I am looking for the exact video clip from Meet the Press, but Obama went on to describe that the president has to feel compelled to seek his office. That the office exists to serve the people and it must therefore be the People who are the motivation, not the ego or interests of the person in the chair.

I believed him when he said that, and ultimately it’s why he has my support.

In the end I feel that Obama is genuine in ways that none of the other major candidates are. Again, this is difficult to sell, and perhaps the only way to truly be sold is to hear his words for yourself. If you have the time I strenuously recommend The Audacity of Hope, but short of or in addition to that take a bit of time and pay attention to the news from time to time. Watch one of the seemingly hundreds of debates that the average joe feels are taking place way too early (for an election 15 months away). Listen to a few of his podcasts. Watch his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention. You might not agree with him. You might not see in him what I see. And that’s okay.

I would just hope that you begin to take an interest in the process and find someone that you do find appealing. It is almost trite to say that the people have the power, and sadly that statement feels less and less true. But that is only because when we don’t take an active interest in our candidates that our elections are overrun with, and then predictably won by, people that we ultimately can’t respect. As the annoying girl at Northwestern taught me, these people don’t just go away. Quite in fact they are the rule and not the exception in modern politics. The exceptions are out there, but must be looked for. And once found they need our help. It is not enough to watch a show like The West Wing and hope that one day a good man will find his way to power. We must seek out that good man and then by the force of our will alone give him the power to lead us. Only then will our government be truly representative, our voices clearly heard.

Anyways, I guess that’s all I wanted to say…