BY MICHAEL S. JOHNSON  |  JAN 29

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
― Abraham Lincoln

There is much that Lincoln said in his lifetime that we should all carry with us, but this quotation is particularly apt as we enter an election year. I say “enter” because not one single American has yet to cast a single vote for a single candidate for office even though the oracles and surveyors have already decided our fate. It’s Trump. No, it’s Cruz. No, Kasich is coming up on the inside rail in New Hampshire. Gotta be Rubio. Watch Christie. Bush is dead. “Donald Trump basks in growing sense of inevitability,” says Politico. My. My.

I read that crap and think back to what we learned from the experiences of Presidents Guiliani, Tsongas, Gingrich, Santorum, Hillary Clinton, and my favorite, Michele Bachmann. They all led in the polls. They all won key caucuses and primaries. And who remembers that loser Bill Clinton, who limped out of Iowa with less than 3 percent in ‘92?

Bill McInturff, one of the best survey research professionals, nailed it two months ago. He said it was the weirdest campaign he’s ever witnessed and had no clue how it was going to turn out.

But soon the voting begins. And, according to the hyperventilating media, everybody in America is going to vote. I mean everybody.

There is considerable speculation about what will be most important to voters when they enter the polling booth and choose among the candidates.

Will they look for experience in public life? Experience in business? A dealmaker? The right posture on the right issues? Guts? An ability to articulate principles? A knack for giving voice to public anger? An agent of change? The establishment? The anti-establishment? The first woman President? How about the cutest dimples, eh, Marco?

No doubt there will be multiple considerations, but I hope when voters step into the booth the spirit of Lincoln, what he said about character, will guide their hand.

Character is not easily defined. The dictionary says it is the collection of qualities distinct to an individual. To me it is the embodiment of the values that shape a person’s behavior. A person of good character has integrity, humility, courage, honesty, a good temperament, spirituality, generosity, sincerity, morality, and most important in politics, a compass that points in the direction of consensus.

Character is always important, but in this election year critically so. When the dust settles in November, the winners, whether they are headed to a statehouse or the White House, will have to make choices, among them, are they going to really govern or keep campaigning?

The choice has consequences. Campaigning and governing are distinct. In some ways they contradict each other. Sadly, we all can identify those in public office who think there’s no difference; those who believe that holding public office is an intermittent stop between campaigns, or those who believe governing and campaigning are one seamless exercise in self-promotion and self-advancement.

It takes character to see the difference and go in the right direction.

Character is particularly relevant this year. After they take their oaths of office, those chosen to govern will have to respond to widespread public anger, anxiety and disillusionment aimed at a government they now serve. They can’t simply throw off the cloak of candidacy under which they, themselves, fomented their ridiculous anti-establishment hysteria. Nor can they easily wipe off the cheap cosmetics they used to create their “outsider rebel” imagery. The temptation to perpetuate that façade, to continue exploiting public anxieties for political gain, is strong. It is easier and often less painful for politicians to point fingers at the villains and wrap their arms around their victims, tear down the institutions rather than restore them and pull people to the extremes rather than bring them together. But that is not public service and ultimately it is a loser for all of us.

It is an acute problem now. As New York Times columnist David Brooks has written, people who feel powerless often turn to their destructive nature for relief. According to Brooks, sixty-four percent of Americans today believe their side, whatever that side is, has been losing. It was Lord Acton who said that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but it is also true, as Brooks reminds us, that powerlessness can also corrupt absolutely.

“Plagued by the anxiety of impotence many voters are drawn to leaders who pretend that our problems could be solved by defeating some villain,” Brooks wrote earlier this month…”If we’re to have any hope of addressing big systemic problems we’ll have to repair big institutions and have functioning parties and a functioning Congress…”

Candidates make promises, take positions, and project positive imagery onto public billboards during a campaign. All of that helps define the candidates, which is what campaigns are supposed to do.

But the promises, the positioning, and the perceptions do not dictate, nor do they produce, the kind of decisions that are required in the governance of a town, a county, state, or country. Promises are easily broken, especially the dumb ones; positions rightfully compromised and perceptions usually collapsed in their collision with political realities. More is required to repair institutions, make parties whole again, and restore Congress to a functioning body.

So, more is needed in the selection process. The real test for those about to be promoted to public office is whether their character will be strong enough and well-grounded enough to sustain them once the reigns of power are firmly in their grasp? Will they lead the country or a small faction of it? Will they be just as effective exercising power as they will be adjusting to its limits? Will they see power as a means to an end or an end in itself? Will they be humbled by their place in history or corrupted by it? Will they be able to speak to those who are powerless and channel their anxieties into a positive force for change and ultimately a governing consensus? Will they be able to restore public faith in both the people who serve and in the institutions in which they serve?

Good things to think about as you pull back the curtain to the voting booth.

Editor’s Note: Mike Johnson is a former journalist, who worked on the Ford White House staff and served as press secretary and chief of staff to House Republican Leader Bob Michel, prior to entering the private sector. He is co-author of a book, Surviving Congress, a guide for congressional staff. He is currently a principal with the OB-C Group.