These ideas have hit the shitter when it comes to a lot of voters. Still, it’s important to reinforce them, even in situations like today where a lot of voters belong to the category of the stupid. That’s a tough statement to make, but a recent Atlantic article by the ever insightful, always intelligent Jonathan Haidt, makes the point that a lot of voters fit the category. He begins with a rough translation of the Genesis story of the Tower of Babel, showing how it fits the context for the last 10 years or so.
“In the Book of Genesis, we are told that the descendants of Noah built a great city in the land of Shinar. They built a tower “with its top in the heavens” to “make a name” for themselves. God was offended by the hubris of humanity and said: ‘Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.’”
As Haidt points out, Babel is the best metaphor for confused, fractured America in the 2010s, and for the broken nation we now inhabit. “Something went terribly wrong, very suddenly. We are disoriented, unable to speak the same language or recognize the same truth. We are cut off from one another and from the past.”
Growing up in the 1940s and ‘50s, there were plenty of Republicans who were willing and capable of governing. And the East Coast WASPs (White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants—a tautology if there ever was one—all Anglo-Saxons are all white) were a lot more interested in governmental leadership than building their financial edifice. Those days are dead and gone.
Given the Babel metaphor, it’s time to revisit voting and political credibility.
So, what makes for a truly credible political candidate? Back in August 2012 I shared David Banks Star Tribune article where he begins with some smart definitions of what makes for credibility. And credibility, in Banks' mind, doesn't mean ideologically correct. So, with sincere hope that this might be of value to voters, I'll list eight of Banks' keys, make a few comments about them, broadening his emphasis to all legislators
The courage to be decisive, when necessary, to be deliberative when it's not, and the wisdom to know the difference. MIT's Sherry Turkle suggests that technology has caused (forced?) us to sacrifice conversation for mere connection. Since I take deliberation to be a mature conversational competency, media technology may be a basic reason for the lack of deliberation. One thing is certain: there seems to be little, public deliberation among candidates today--and the constant flow of ideological statements are the result.
The intellect to entertain conflicting ideas. Entertaining conflicting ideas, what Leon Festinger called cognitive dissonance, is inevitably discomforting. But reality majors in conflicting ideas, making this key tool highly valuable.
The ability to explain complexity to a divided population that prefers simplicity. I revere high intelligence, but more and more I suspect I'm in the minority. How else to understand various behaviors following Bush indicating that many just don't "do nuance." Thus, the ability to explain complexity is a desperately needed attribute in today's political environment.
The judgment to appraise challenging situations soundly on short notice--plus the ability to reflect this skill in public. Thinking and speaking in the same person? That's asking a lot.
The warmth to lead cheers, and to come across as authentic in doing so. Both cheerleading and authenticity are characteristics that do not come naturally, but they can be learned.
The empathy to understand a diverse America, personal background notwithstanding. This is two competencies: both insight and emotion.
The breadth and depth of experience suitable for the challenges most likely to arise. Those whose experiences were cloistered, neutral or highly homogeneous offer limited opportunities for the development of critical, practical wisdom. Heartfelt, fumbled semi-articulateness is not enough.
The integrity to respect the office and the role. Surprisingly, far too few legislators lack significant integrity in respect to their relationships and role—a statement I wouldn’t have made in 2012. But in spite of my blogging about the "political idiocracy," and complaint about the lack of "public" deliberation,” I've found by searching that a great number of legislators can still be trusted.
Realistically, when we get into the voting booth, we're all going to have to compromise. But Banks' keys to credible candidates are a useful template.
David Banks, "At last, a clash of credible candidates." Minneapolis Star Tribune Opinion, August 15, 2012.