I told myself I wasn't going to succumb to political analysis of the candidates but a recent e-mailer (why don't folks put these things in comments???) asked me a very good question. Referring to a post awhile back re: wisdom and how I claimed that the current batch of candidates (I guess we're down to 3, or 4 if you count Nader) have not demonstrated any special signs of possessing wisdom, nor do the electorate seem to use wisdom, individually or collectively, in bringing candidates to the vote or to the office(s), s/he writes:
Could you expand a list of attributes that would be your litmus test for candidacy? I am not sure I could recognize wisdom in a candidate before they had a chance to play their role in the office. Don't you need to use your intuition to judge someone else's capacity for wisdom?
I agree completely that the only real test of wisdom comes after time and outcomes determine the goodness of decisions. Who knows, 100 years from now, if there are any historians about, the history books may declare George W. Bush as the wisest man alive today because he declared a preemptive war against Sadam Hussien! Yeah, and monkeys will jump out of my...
Nevertheless the point is that it is hard to recognize wisdom a priori. However, the idea of litmus test isn't entirely without merit either. So here are some ideas that occur to me on the basis of studying sapience. The list isn't exhaustive, just suggestive.
1. It turns out that age does matter. You want youth because you believe the office holder needs energy. But at the same time at too young an age they have not accumulated enough life experience to have a wealth of tacit knowledge (valid beliefs) upon which to base judgments. In general a elder but healthy person would be more likely to have the wisdom needed.
2. The intelligence of the candidate matters a great deal. Researchers in wisdom psychology have found repeatedly that wisdom correlates most strongly with intelligence. There are good neurological reasons why this is so. Learning all that tacit knowledge depends on general intelligence.
3. Holistic (systemic) understanding of how the world works is crucial. My ideal candidate will indicate that they actually understand the major threats to the world, not just the US. They should be able to articulate what those threats are and what would need to be done to alleviate or mitigate the threats, or adapt to the future environment resulting from them.
4. A clear understanding of the various types of decisions that need to be made and their timing is essential. Knowing what is a strategic vs. a logistic type of decision seems to elude most politicians. While corporate managers and generals might understand the distinctions better, the nature of the activities in which they participated and learned those distinctions somewhat subverts their potential for #3. Of course a general might also learn the futility of fighting and war as a result of being in it and thereby increase the scope of their understanding. Or a manager might recognize the zero-sum(ness) of the game of commercial competition and seek office to mitigate that aspect. But generally speaking, very few people ever really deeply reflect on how they go about making decisions and categorize those decisions into types and levels in the hierarchical cybernetic model.
5. They should be mainly motivated by love of all of nature and mankind. Nationalism has to go the way of the dodo bird. This is a real barrier since the populace expect the leaders to look out for them first and foremost. The leader is supposed to protect their interests. And only if the populace comes to recognize that their real long-term interests are bound up in the interests of every other part of nature and humans globally would a candidate be able to fulfill this part of the test and stand a chance of getting elected.
This last item shows a good example of why I think truly wise people tend not to run for office. And that is why those who do run for office need not compete with truly wise people! You may wonder why honesty isn't on the list. I didn't bother to put it there because that is asking too much of any politician! But seriously, honesty, integrity, and a willingness to tell inconvenient truths (bravery) should underscore all of the above. But could any politician, no matter how wise, survive in the American political sphere if they actually acted this way?
What about the current list of candidates for the office of President of the US? How do any of them shape up under the above criteria? I can only offer my observations. Perhaps some of you can offer your own.
Hillary Clinton. She scores OK on #1, so-so, and I think she is certainly a very smart lady, but the sense of distrust at her 'calculating' ways may be because she is actually too smart relative to her capacity for sapience. She had ample exposure to the affairs of state with her husband's administration. But what did she actually learn? I, personally, don't see much evidence of #3 and weak at best evidence for #4. I think she fits into the same category as the general or manager. She is ideologically tainted by what she learned (think her experiences as the health care czar).
Barrack Obama. Well he's off my list starting at #1! Looking at his record in the Illinois Senate and his performance to date in the national Senate I don't see anything that leads me to believe he's had enough life experience (breadth or depth) to be ready for high office. He has charisma. But charisma is not wisdom. Charisma makes it too easy for some folks to walk through life without really having to learn from defeat or mistakes as well as from other people's foibles.
Of what I know of some of his audacity of hope and it's reflection in some of his policy proposals I have to claim he does not meet criteria #3 or #4. Some of his energy positions are just plain politic rather than rational. What he seems to have is some aspect of #5. But then maybe that is just part of the charisma schtick.
John McCain. He's old enough. He actually sounds more up on #s 3 and 4. Someone who is strong in #3 will generally not have a firm ideological-based stance on every issue. McCain has shown an ability to understand global warming even as a Republican. But I have the feeling his score on #5 is dismal. Talk of following the Bush policies vis-a-vis Iraq strike me as a complete lack of a loving attitude. If you could transfer Dennis Kucinich's attitudes to McCain, you might have something!
As for Mr. Nader, I don't know what to say. He is old enough, but based on his not learning anything from his prior two runs, well...
What are your observations? Do you think any of these candidates really are trustworthy in the sense that you trust them to make wise decisions? What evidence for or against would you bring to bear on this question?
I'd like to suggest a variant of #3, "Holistic (systemic) understanding of how the world works is crucial," because I fear that you could have a candidate who scores high in #1-5 and still fail. Something like,
"#6 A deep understanding of coalition/movement building, a high social/polical IQ."
Perhaps you took this as a given since we aren't going to notice a candidate, one can't be a serious candidate, without this attribute in some degree. All three of the current crop can lay claim to having political smarts. Nader not so much, but then he's playing to a very small audience trying to get exposure for a few important ideas. He's a wise man but not a serious candidate for president. And given his platform he can not be.
What I mean by #6 is the ability of a leader to speak past the Beltway powers-that-be directly to the American people and motivate them in the sense of your #3, 4 and 5. FDR seemed have that in spades but he had two clear and enormous crises to focus his audience (the great depression then world war). We need someone who can articulate less obvious but equally bad crises like climate change and consumption growth in a way that motivates people from all political persuasions. The next president will likely have a huge financial crisis to manage and that will be an opportunity to talk about income disparity and economic justice.
Posted by: Trinifar | March 17, 2008 at 12:00 PM