Making a Virtue of Necessity
There was a time, not so long ago, when an individual's personal life was considered "off limits" for speeches and press coverage. Early in the 20th century, U.S. presidents had largely a public rather than a private persona and leaders like Charles de Gaulle made a point of appearing only as a public figure.
There is something to be said for such "walls." There are plenty of examples of leaders whose personal life and history was unexceptionable but whose public record was disastrous, even more examples of leaders who were impressive, despite many blemishes in their personal histories.
In the era of 24/7 press coverage, internet, blogging, etc., that time is past, probably forever. We even know of the foibles of the sons of Kim Jong-Il! So making a virtue of necessity, leaders are expected to draw on their personal histories, even as their supporters and their opponents will do likewise.
For such individuals under public scrutiny my suggestions are:
l. Be honest and straightforward. Don't embellish or hide: You'll be found out and lack of integrity will be added to your list of demerits.
2. Draw on your personal history when appropriate. Don't wallow in it unnecessarily or fail to bring it up when it is clearly relevant.
3. Embody your history in the way that you live, behave, talk, and lead. There should be a seamless connection between the story you share with the public, and the life that you lead.
No doubt part of Barack Obama's appeal is that he clearly represents the culmination of his life experiences and is not afraid to say so and to draw upon that history as appropriate. Because George W. Bush's personal history was far less admirable, he had to allude to it (drinking, aimlessness) without being straightforward about it. John McCain's personal history was more impressive when he let others speak about it, and only alluded to it himself tangentially.
Which brings me to the issue of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Inevitably, in this media climate, and given the importance of the position for which she has been nominated, her personal history will come up. It is telling that the personal histories prove more salient in the case of women and minorities than in the case of white males, where (as with Justices Roberts and Alito or with Bush vs. Kerry or Bush vs. Gore) it should be equally relevant.
And of course Judge Sotomayor has stirred the pot because of her one ethnically tinged comment about a wise female Hispanic judge. It should be up to Judge Sotomayor to show that, despite the facts of her personal life, she is able to act in a disinterested (i.e. non-biased) manner across a range of cases. And that is because the requirements for a judge are different than the requirements for many other positions: A judge should be prepared to uphold the law and legal precedent, even if it goes against her personal predilections and the facts of her own history. Empathy is fine but it cannot trump an even handed application of the law.
It remains unfair that a woman, or a member of a religious or ethnic minority, or a gay person, should have to make more of a personal case than a member of the until-now majority WASP background. I look toward a day when any individual in the public eye should be able to draw on personal history and should be expected to show where it is relevant and where it must be put into brackets. Paradoxically, the election of Barack Obama and the nomination of Judge Sotomayor should move us closer to that date. The best evidence of this is the fact that few care today that the Supreme Court has five Catholic and two Jewish Justices.
Posted by: aaron20 | June 8, 2009 1:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.