Three were land surveyors.
Six were one time farmers.
Many more served honorably in our country’s military.
Yet somewhere over the course of our nation’s history, we have come to value — and perhaps “trump” (bwa ha ha) — the resume of a career politician. I’m wondering if that’s wise. I don’t think I’m alone.
With the 21 persons currently running for the 2016 Presidency of the United States of America (both major parties combined), I am especially struck by a unique three: Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and Donald Trump. Please don’t mistake my fascination for advocacy. But even before last night’s second active, insightful debate, I have been struck by the fact that none of the three boast a resume touting political experience — and each has a formidable following in these continued early polls. Trump and Fiorina have successful business track records. Carson is a respected neurosurgeon. The fact that many are increasingly attracted to these three candidates in particular tells us that there exists something within a growing set of voters that wants something other than a career politician in the White House.
Note…
Warren Harding ran a newspaper.
Herbert Hoover was an engineer.
Truman spent years as a men’s clothing retailer.
Lyndon Johnson was a teacher.
So were Chester Arthur and James Garfield; Garfield doubled as a minister.
And Ronald Reagan — revered by many on both sides of the proverbial partisan aisle — and before serving as California’s governor — was best known previously as an actor and President of the Screen Actors Guild.
We have long been attracted to persons of diverse, varied, life experience.
But somewhere along the line, we began valuing not only career politicians, but also, attorneys. 24 — yes, 24 — current or former U.S. Presidents are or were lawyers at one time. No doubt the ability to navigate through lawsuits and a fluency in legalese are helpful skills to bring to the Oval Office, but what have we sacrificed by valuing these skills so highly? Are we missing something? Are we trumping the wrong things within leadership?
I’m thinking we need something more…
… more than the ability to splice and couch words and navigate through legalese…
And … far more than someone who simply uses one election to propel them to the next…
Where is, my friends, is the servant leader?
A servant leader is a person who always enriches the lives of other people. “I/me/my/myself” are not routine nor frequent words in their vocabulary. It’s not about them gaining more influence or power. It’s not about them doing all the directing. It’s not about them proclaiming how wonderful or altruistic they are. It’s not about them and all they alone have to give. It’s not about them and how brilliant and omniscient they are. It’s not about their programs, their policies, or their self-proclaimed political giftedness. In other words, it’s not — and never — about them. A servant leader knows that. A servant leader never confuses serving the people with the propelling of self.
My sense — and I could be wrong — is that the career politician has trouble recognizing that it’s not (and never has been) about them. Maybe that’s harsh; that’s not my intent. But it’s almost as if the career politician feels they have to serve; they must do this — as if we can’t survive without them. I would add that after years of obvious, ongoing futility and ineffective government — a problem caused and contributed to by both parties — the public is tired; we are looking for something more.
We want authenticity. I think we want servanthood, too.
Can that be found in a businessman/woman or neurosurgeon? Who knows. Some of the more loquacious candidates (or at least one in particular 🙂 ) still seem way too comfortable with those “I/me/my/myself” pronouns.
But the rise of the non-politician — and the non-attorney — tells me many are searching for something better and more… and more effective.
Respectfully…
AR