Measuring candidates, Teddy Roosevelt style

I just finished several books by historical scholar Edmund Morris on President Theodore Roosevelt.

Throughout his biographies on the famed Rough Rider and former New York governor and city police commissioner, Morris tangibly describes Roosevelt’s ethical tenacity. His colorful magnification of our 26th president was enlightening, mostly because Teddy held a fervent belief in respect for and accountability in government. He judged people by their actions and humility.

Admittedly, when I read about legislators and executives of the past and present who are above reproach and held the highest regard for transparency in their public service, I have a painful twinge in my gut because of my own indelible journey.

My rise up the public service ladder was at lightning speed with a seemingly colorful outreach and effect until my tumble back down to the bottom of the rungs, landing by empty buckets and stained with the paint of public scorn.

I’m probably an appropriate “candidate,” if you’ll excuse the pun, to refer to a Roosevelt or Lincoln or Gov. Jay Hammond or Sen. Arliss Sturgulewski or Mayor George Sullivan, and juxtapose in comparison their records to my own and those of modern-day policymakers.

It’s obvious that greed, selfishness and arrogance remain pervasive in government. We most often joke about politicians and lack of honesty. In modern campaigns and elections, nearly every candidate expects voters to believe in, respect and to trust that he or she will make the right decisions.

But we all know that’s not the case, and from many candidacies evolves the policymaker or executive who loses his way and forgets the inspiration upon which he ran in the first place. That’s not to say all candidates and elected officials have malfeasant hearts, but it’s easy to lose sight of what the purpose of serving in office really means. I certainly did, and my ongoing catharsis and reflection force me to scrutinize current candidates and public officials even more as a result.

Fodder is eagerly generated by public and pundits when the likes of former lawmakers like Gov. Elliot Spitzer and Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York, Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina and even state Rep. Vic Kohring of Wasilla return for another try at public office. These policymakers made mistakes, some worse than others. Punishment was doled out, either punitively or purely through disgrace and resignation. Public and private scrutiny is comprehensive. Editorials and avatar commenters cast aspersions and raise their noses with a deep sniff of condemnation.

As the borough and city elections near in the fall, and state and federal elections return next summer, it’s up to every voter to dig deep in assessment of his or her own principles. What’s right and wrong, ethical and not, is certainly subjective. Your life’s experiences make you who you are today, and from your personal lens you determine what is appropriate in doctrine, law and rules.

Most people seeking office don’t have such colorful pasts and records as the aforementioned. Candidates are starting to craft their messages. Websites, mailers, logos and advertisements are surfacing. If you’re accessible, and so inclined to engage in some thoughtful interrogatories, you might meet and greet a candidate on your doorstep or at a community event. Maybe you’ll listen to a radio interview or read an article online about candidates, visions, platforms and parties.

Rest assured, no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. No candidate you meet will be blemish-free.

Granted, sometimes it’s overwhelming to contemplate the world of politics. The Teddy Roosevelts of the world, the men and women who have the highest of honor and character and who have the courage to tell you in complete honesty what they believe and why and how they came to feel the way they do, seldom win. Just ask Ross Perot or Ron Paul or Alaska’s own Wayne Anthony Ross.

As elections surface, I’ll keep reading history, as well as my local and national newspapers, for consideration. Like you, I’ll form my opinions based on my moral litmus tests and personal experiences.

Ultimately, I’ll vote for the candidate who strives to do good deeds but recognizes personal fallibility. I’m for the candidate seeking public service for selfless reasons — because it’s worthwhile, honorable and will hopefully improve our society. I think Teddy Roosevelt had it right in his April 23, 1910 speech “Citizenship in a Republic, delivered at the Sorbonne in Paris, France:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Tom Anderson is a former Alaska state representative. He owns Optima Public Relations and hosts “The Tom Anderson Show” on FOX News Talk’s KOAN 1020 AM, 4 to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday.