being frank

If you haven’t been keeping up with the prevailing political winds these days, I would certainly love to hear about your secret ability to detach. Suffice it to say, the issues that have filled the headlines across most news outlets are not endemic to the United States. Several countries around the world are witnessing upheavals amongst their leadership, no doubt emboldened by the quantum shifts witnessed in our own backyard. As much as we each have an opinion about what has been going on (and some just cannot wait to share), I will leave those discussions for other souls. The on-air pundits have elevated (well, more like inflated) the art of political rhetoric to something akin to a three-ringed circus complete with ring masters on either side of the political fence.

Instead, I want to address the notion of the public servant. More to the point, I want to explore the ability to do what is morally correct versus politically correct. Although it’s no secret that being political hasn’t exactly been married to the concept of morality, you can’t help but wonder if these public figures could ever make incongruities more the exception rather than the rule.     

I grew up with the understanding that politics are in and of itself, a tainted game. Without pinning a timeline on the subject, it’s safe to say that graft in some form or another has been around for countless generations. And the unbridled rhetoric shared by its various proponents eventually leads to clashes of convictions that inexorably mutate into some sort of ideological clash, skirmish or even war.

Webster’s definition of politics is the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government. Its definition of public servant is a government official or employee. The folks at Good Party provide a bit more guidance regarding the latter: A public servant is an individual who is elected to office and/or employed by the government, whether at the local, state, or federal level. At its core, the term “public servant” denotes an individual whose primary motivation and role are to serve the interests, needs, and well-being of the public. OK; now we’re getting somewhere.

So to whittle this down to a very simplistic idea, politicians – as public servants – are in the service industry (of sorts.) Their job is to assess the needs of their constituents and find ways to mitigate the issues at hand by finding commonality amongst their peers and arriving at solutions that would benefit the whole. At least that’s my interpretation of what a politician should be at their core. In the end, it’s about the interests of the people they serve and not those of the politicians themselves. This also implies to a point that the politician – as a citizen – should share the same interests and concerns of the constituents whom they serve.

At the risk of showing my age, I used to love watching Frank Capra movies with my beloved. They were a soothing distraction of sorts; stories of the common man wanting to do good for others while fighting the nefarious actions of unscrupulous people in power. If you take a moment to dig into Mr. Capra’s background, you’ll find that some of the themes of his films ran contrary to his personal convictions. The same could be said of Charlie Chaplin. But these were choices they made within their chosen craft, and they sometimes placed their beliefs on the back burner in order to share an interesting or necessary message with the general public. In a very general way, they acted like public servants.

A focal point of this commentary is that we all have choices to make for just about everything we do. We choose to believe or disbelieve a wide range of subjects, ideas, or philosophies, right down to what kind of food to eat or car to buy. Each of these are motivated by our knowledge or understanding of the available options. And our motivations are driven by how we’re guided to acquire that knowledge. And in this world of mass consumption with an almost fanatical reliance on technologies, we seek out the path of least resistance via those in positions of power, influence or areas of expertise to point us in the right direction.

Yes, I am glossing over so many layers to this discussion and hope you will forgive my rather lackadaisical approach. But if you think about what I’ve written thus far, you might see where this loops back to: Morality, or the lack thereof.

When people are in positions of power, influence or expertise, their very foundational nature is predicated on the notion of public service. One that denotes an individual whose primary motivation and role is to serve the interests, needs, and well-being of the public. So what happens when we allow ourselves to be guided by the principles, policies or beliefs of these people, yet the concepts of right and wrong are absent? What happens when we allow ourselves to be convinced of the supposed veracity of incorrect data or are confounded by irrational knowledge simply because those in power wish to steer us in a different direction that won’t harm or affect their choices?

The basic tenet of our societal system of leadership is based on the notion that they (as an entity or individual) will protect the people under their guidance while the latter, in turn, will follow and support that leadership to ensure continuity and the safety of all concerned. There are variations of this theme throughout business, finance, education, etc.. In any of those scenarios, a sense of morality is paramount for ensuring the safety, security and longevity of the system and the people who either run it or are governed by it. And although we wish for these leaders to be faithful and committed to their sense of morality, that is practically a virtual impossibility. And that’s because we are all flawed individuals to a certain degree, and subject to those weaknesses that constantly challenge the human condition.

There’s a great line from a classic 1951 film, The African Queen, starring Katharine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart. The character played by Ms. Hepburn is questioned on her need for retribution against someone who has had more than the occasional drink. The character played by Mr. Bogart doesn’t understand her disdain, saying that, A man takes a drop too much once in a while, it’s only human nature. To which she replies, Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.

Yes, the vast majority of us are taught from an early age to do our best to rise above our human nature by adapting a proper moral compass. It is the fervent wish of most parents that their children learn from the mistakes of the past and form the right moral fiber to guide them into the future. Those who excel at this endeavor become examples to others; they become leaders. They become public servants. But this requires putting the self-serving aspects of their personality in the proper perspective in case they end up putting the proverbial cart before the horse. It’s a carefully choreographed dance that relies on a person’s ability to follow their moral compass instead of the wants of their ego or the perceived consequences of their fears. In the words of Henry David Thoreau: If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.

The beat to which we choose to march forward is the trajectory that will lead us to be an innovator or an instigator. It’s the decision we each must make to either walk the path of our nature unchecked, or to follow the principles of integrity, justice and fair play in order to rise above the deceptions of our human nature to forge a path towards a better future for us all.