Three Politicians
December 13, 2010 - by
Over the last month I’ve watched stories converge for three politicians I’ve known: Jim Hunt, Mike Easley and John Edwards.
First I published my biography of Hunt, and we made a 10-stop book tour. Then Mike Easley was convicted of a felony. Then John Edwards reemerged after Elizabeth ’s death.
Toward the end of my book, I tried to make sense of their varying fates. I saw a fundamental difference between Hunt and Edwards: Hunt was in politics to do something and Edwards was in it to be something. I never figured why Easley was in it. Maybe to get some stuff for free.
I noted how Hunt – and North Carolina – benefitted from the way he came up in politics. He spent years criss-crossing the state, meeting people and being evaluated by them. Neither Easley nor Edwards had that experience, and North Carolinians never had that chance to size them up face to face.
Here’s the lesson I draw – for casual voters, for journalists and for those of us who make politics our life’s work: Character counts.
Don’t be snowed just because somebody is right on your issues or good on TV or electable. In fact, the more those things impress you, the deeper you need to probe.
It’s probably like advising your children about picking a spouse. At bottom, what drives this person? Where do they come from? What is his or her history? What do people who know them say about them?
I was lucky to work with Hunt. I got fooled by Edwards, for a time. I never felt quite comfortable with Easley.
You can bet I’ll take a harder look at all politicians from now on.
Posted in General, North Carolina - Democrats
Three Politicians
December 13, 2010/
Over the last month I’ve watched stories converge for three politicians I’ve known: Jim Hunt, Mike Easley and John Edwards.
First I published my biography of Hunt, and we made a 10-stop book tour. Then Mike Easley was convicted of a felony. Then John Edwards reemerged after Elizabeth ’s death.
Toward the end of my book, I tried to make sense of their varying fates. I saw a fundamental difference between Hunt and Edwards: Hunt was in politics to do something and Edwards was in it to be something. I never figured why Easley was in it. Maybe to get some stuff for free.
I noted how Hunt – and North Carolina – benefitted from the way he came up in politics. He spent years criss-crossing the state, meeting people and being evaluated by them. Neither Easley nor Edwards had that experience, and North Carolinians never had that chance to size them up face to face.
Here’s the lesson I draw – for casual voters, for journalists and for those of us who make politics our life’s work: Character counts.
Don’t be snowed just because somebody is right on your issues or good on TV or electable. In fact, the more those things impress you, the deeper you need to probe.
It’s probably like advising your children about picking a spouse. At bottom, what drives this person? Where do they come from? What is his or her history? What do people who know them say about them?
I was lucky to work with Hunt. I got fooled by Edwards, for a time. I never felt quite comfortable with Easley.
You can bet I’ll take a harder look at all politicians from now on.
Posted in General, North Carolina - Democrats