The Perfect Candidate
Aug 21st, 2010 by FVoshell
When I was a member of a not-to-be-named evangelical Presbyterian church, the pastor retired and a search committee was set up to find his replacement. For months the congregation funneled their requests for the type of pastor they wanted to the search committee.
Congregants argued endlessly among themselves about what they wanted—a PhD, youngish, but not too young; seasoned, but not too old; a heart for youth; a heart for the elderly; married lest he fall into temptation; two to four kids who could beef up the Sunday school attendance; experience as a pastor in several congregations–but those stays should not have been too short lest they indicated someone flighty; warmhearted but strict; willing to work for low pay and long hours; availability at any moment; a wise counselor–and on and on.
It sometimes seemed that what a given candidate for pastor actually believed was at the bottom of the list.
Even after eighteen long months, the search was not complete. By then I had left the congregation for another church, but a chance encounter with a woman who was a member of the stalled congregation was illuminating.
“Good grief, “I said when I found out the committee was still searching. “What are they expecting to find? One of Jesus’ apostles?”
“No,” the woman sighed and smiled ruefully. “I think they are looking higher than that.”
Ah, the quest for the perfect candidate. He would never be found. Pity the poor pastor who was eventually anointed and actually accepted the job. Even if he was a good, earnest man, he would never meet expectations of the congregation. The good folks in the pew would be looking for every flaw that didn’t meet their perfectionist standards. Roast pastor for Sunday lunch would become a hallowed tradition.
What was true in selecting a candidate for the ministry of that little, anxious and perfectionist church is also true of candidates for political office. Demands for perfection can jettison the candidacy from the start. The good is discarded or viciously attacked because forgotten in all the brouhaha are the core political beliefs of the candidate, who inevitably, like the rest of us, will suffer from imperfections.
Therefore, in selecting and supporting a candidate for office, the voter needs to look at the core beliefs of the candidate, knowing full well that person will have baggage like all the rest of us. He or she will have broken any and all of the ten commandments by thought, word or deed. This is to say nothing of breaking the law, federal or state, as the laws are so complex that, like the common folk of Jesus time who were burdened with the Pharisees’ infinitely complex laws, none can keep them perfectly. But inadvertent mistakes and/or minor transgressions of the law do not necessarily mean the person in question is a bad person and thus unworthy of consideration.
While it is true that real criminality and/or irreparably compromised character constitutes automatic disqualification from candidacy for office, it’s wise to recall that the perfect human being who demands a given candidate has not committed, is not committing and will never commit any transgressions—real or perceived–is inevitably a judgmental tyrant. Those who fail to measure up to such a god’s standards are deemed worthy of hatred, vilification and even destruction.
So, what to do when one is evaluating candidates? Choose the candidate who will stand up for your and his/her core values, attentively hear them out, and vote for them, recognizing that like yourself, any candidate has been, is now and forevermore inevitably will be imperfect.
In brief, don’t discard the perfectly good for the perfectly perfect.
Too true
Well put, which is why I asked TW when the last time he walked on water occurred because at his next performance I would like to be there with a camera.
Fay, your storytelling is great. You have a way with words. It’s naive to suggest that we disconnect the professed “core beliefs” from the candidate’s actual behavior. That is a recipe for getting conned. How the heck do we judge credibility without connecting that to a person’s behavior?
Any snake oil salesman can stand up and spout core beliefs. The pedophile priest. The anti-gay closet homosexual. The Bernie Madoff financial advisor. The anti-drug closet drug addict. No, it’s not what they say about core values that counts, it’s how they live. We are not looking for perfection. We are simply ruling out the hypocrites the phonies. That’s why Barnie Frank can get away with being gay, but Pastor Jones cannot.
Candidates pander to core beliefs to get elected all the time. How do we know who to believe? We examine how they conduct their lives.
So if a candidate professes appealing core values, law and order, Christian faith, personal responsibility, Founders Values, small government in flowery words . . . but then lives a life in contradiction, refusing to take personal responsibility, tax evasion, defaulting on loans, scamming contributors, blaming others, telling lies to cover things up . . that’s not a mere imperfection, that is a window into the candidates real core values.
Thhink 123,
I think I addressed your concern as follows:
“While it is true that real criminality and/or irreparably compromised character constitutes automatic disqualification from candidacy for office…”
If you think the facts reveal a candidate is a criminal or has an irreparably compromised character, then that person is disqualified.
Senor Hube disagrees, he hates all brown people.
Also, while flawed in and of itself, we do have a process for evaluating the criminality of politicians: the court system. If a person or group has irrefutable evidence of a candidate’s criminality, he/she/they can sue.
Protack Sock Puppet: So why then do you
1) Trash Bill Lee for initially supporting granting drivers licenses to illegal immigrants?
2) Support in-state tuition ONLY for legal residents of the state — thus withdrawing your claim in front a group of Hispanics that you favored such tuition for ILLEGAL immigrants as well?
Who hates brown people? Your brain has taken off … without its pilot. Not that it helped much in the first place …
http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/304888.php
Faye, yours is a wonderful but idealized world. The great majority of voters don’t research candidates, let alone attend functions to hear them speak or speak to them to find out their beliefs and convictions. They rely mostly on what they see, hear, and read in the media, and also on party affiliation. If voters were as informed and politically engaged as they should be, many mistakes across the country would not be in office now, most notably Barack Obama and his coterie.
Concerned,
I hear you concerning the majority of voters, but I think things are changing as people wake up and become more informed.
No, I’m not an idealist. I’m well aware of the dark side of human nature.
Faye….well put missive and your summary in the comment that if behavior disqualifies a candidate than don’t vote for that candidate. How could anyone have a problem with this?
Course I lack your prosaic class some might say so let me add that hooting and hollering like monkeys isn’t all that classy or appropriate.
Mr. Rodriguez continues to win my support with his tenacious commentary.
Heh.
Pat,
I think some have a problem with accusations of criminality or near criminality based on anecdote and assumptions, not on hard evidence.
If there’s no hard evidence, it’s slander.
Unfortunately, slander is a constant of the political game going on among some in both parties.
Fay, you come across as a high minded person. Now you say we should lower the bar for candidates to not being indicted on criminal charges? Or not exhibiting irreparable character flaws?
Voter don’t have time for due diligence. We use the smell test. If somebody smells fishy like it or not they are out.
It’s only slander if the aggrieved party goes to court and proves the charges are false. When it comes to slander you’re guilty until you prove you’re innocent. Strange, but true.
Hey, Clinton paid Paula Jones a $700k settlement for his sexual assault, was called a liar by a federal judge (Wright- a Carter appointee) and got disbarred, yet is still worshipped by Socialist-Democrats.
John Kennedy cheated on his wife incessantly, and tacitly sanctioned the assassination of the Diem brothers.
Drunken Teddy Kennedy (‘The Lion of the Senate’) killed his secretary-girlfriend, left her to drown, and consulted his lawyers before reporting the incident the next day.
“God Bless Our Socialist-Democrat Deities!”