Home > Blogs > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
Authenticity and Our Presidential Candidates
-
Jun 12, 2007 Posted by Eric RigaudWhat does “authenticity” mean in the current presidential race and for that matter in public life in general? Not much, according to Paul Krugman in his scathing op-ed column, Authentic? Never Mind, in yesterday’s New York Times. Too bad he’s wrong.
Krugman rips those who would argue that authenticity has a place in today’s public discourse. People, he says, should instead use as a gauge the policy proposals a leader puts forth and the motives behind those offerings. It’s the only real way to judge a candidate.
But authenticity is central to how we see and judge presidential candidates, presidents themselves, public innovators, and how others in public life conduct themselves. Authenticity goes hand in hand with two other “A’s” I often write and speak about – namely, authority and accountability.
I’m especially interested in how the 3A’s can inform and guide our own words and deeds, rather than to use them in judging others. Far too much time is spent in our society on pointing fingers at one another and placing blame; not nearly enough time is spent on looking in the mirror to change our own ways and on leading by example.
But Krugman’s argument smacks of throwing the baby out with the bath water. He says too many people use notions of authenticity to “put down politicians they don’t like or praise politicians they like, with no relationship to what the politicians actually say or do.” Further, he implies that there’s no definition of authenticity worth talking about or applying.
Let’s take his first point. I’ve long said that much of our public life and politics is based on attempts to manufacture authenticity. That’s wrong. Oftentimes there doesn’t seem to be much daylight between some politicians and snake oil salesmen. False authenticity wreaks havoc on people’s trust in leaders and produces a corrosive effect on our body politic.
Yet that doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t – or can’t effectively – use authenticity as a lens for thinking about presidential candidates or any other facet of public life and politics. To the contrary, authenticity is at the core of what people are yearning to find in public life and politics. People are tired of not having their reality reflected in the public square and, worse, having their reality distorted by those who seek to curry favor and win votes.
So, what does authenticity mean for me? Try this:
• Being Authentic means that your words and actions reflect the reality of people’s lives.
• Being Authentic means that you see and treat people in a human way, not as objects to be manipulated.
• Being Authentic means seeking to understand the wholeness of a situation – capturing the different perspectives, ambiguity, and tensions that exist. What you say rings true.
• Being Authentic means genuinely listening to people in an ongoing way – and not through gimmicks and by windrow dressing.
• Being Authentic means you reflect people’s lives and the community in which you work.
• Being Authentic means that people believe you have their best interests at heart, even when you disagree with them. You exercise a sense of affection for the community.
I urge Paul Krugman to use this lens when listening to and watching the presidential candidates, not to mention others in public life and politics. When he does he’ll see, yes, people can determine if someone is authentic. And, no, it probably doesn’t make much sense to come to snap decisions about that; usually such determinations are made over time, as each of us take the measure of an individual.
So, what about you? Watch the candidates for yourself, use the bullets I laid out here, and you’ll see what I mean. Honestly.
P.S. Last week in The Harwood Public Innovator, our weekly e-letter, we provided useful information on the 3A’s, which you can get by clicking here.
******************************************************************
Additional Note: If you are not a New York Times subscriber and could not link to Paul Krugman's op-ed column above, you can read it at the blog, Economist's View.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Harwood Institute has no affiliation whatsoever with the blog, Economist's View, the originator of this article nor is The Harwood Institute endorsed or sponsored by the blog, Economist's View or the originator.)