So as I watched the abundance of
Republican hopefuls the other night, I decided I needed to find some sort of
criteria/criterion that would narrow my options.
Being as this was a Republican
debate, the candidates and I agreed for the most part on issues. So the issues
weren’t . . . well, an issue. But as I watched the posturing, the often canned
responses, the occasional heated moments, it became apparent some candidates
were clearly more skilled at explaining the problems we face as a country and what
they planned to do about them. I started thinking about that, and the word statesman came to mind.
To confirm I was on the right track,
I consulted the dictionary. Concerning politicians, the definitions ran the
gamut from "a person skilled in political government
or administration; a statesman or stateswoman" to "a seeker or holder of public office who is more concerned about winning
favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles." (They might as
well have said “see bottom-feeding scum-sucker” for that last one.)
The definitions for statesmen/stateswoman were a little
kinder: "a person experienced in the art
of government or versed in the administration of government affairs; a person
exhibiting great wisdom and ability in directing the affairs of a government or
in dealing with important public issues."
On first reading, those definitions
did nothing to solve my quandary. In fact, they seemed to suggest that politicians
and statesmen weren’t that different. It seemed that to be either, there had to
be a firm grounding in the ins and outs (read that “wheeling and dealing”) of
government.
While I don’t buy into the notion
that all politicians are on-the-take sleaze
balls (although some definitely are), neither do I believe that experience in government
is necessary to be an effective chief executive. The definition of statesman seemed to suggest that. But
then I read it again and noticed that little two-letter word: or.
Statesmen don’t have to have
experience in government. Just because people haven’t held a public office, it
doesn’t mean they don’t possess skill in dealing
with important public issues. They might have demonstrated this ability in other
ways. To suggest a couple: through volunteerism, through the way they run their
lives/businesses.
And so I was able to establish my
final criteria. My candidate of choice must fit my definition of a statesman: one who exhibits great wisdom
and ability in dealing with important public issues and has the skill to effectively communicate those qualities. That
narrows my choices considerably.
