The big conversation, of course, is now the value of tears. Did Hillary Clinton's emotional reflection on the challenges and motivations of being a presidential candidate win her votes? Does crying grease or derail her chances? Every newspaper I have read since the New Hampshire primary has spilled far more ink on the question than she spilled actual tears.
In the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I did not caucus for Senator Clinton in the recent Iowa Caucuses. She is not my candidate.
That said, I appreciated her emotion. As someone who quite regularly finds the lump in his throat squeezing fluidly out of his tear ducts, I know how unexpectedly such emotional moments get triggered, and how quickly they can dissipate. I have also learned how powerless I am to prevent them. I used to be quite bothered by the interruptions -- less because I was embarrassed by the emotions, themselves, than I was annoyed by the breach in my conversational flow. But I've gotten over that. In fact, I've come to view such emotional interludes as reliable and tangible evidence that I am still alive -- still actively accepting inputs to my system, and still allowing them to impact me. To be human is to feel. I've concluded that becoming robotic is not in my best interest; that being a whole person necessarily involves my whole self -- body, brains, soulful and spiritual connection, and emotion. That multi-faceted wholeness is an important and precious part of the way God created us. I have long since relinquished the fear that emotional sensitivity renders me any less capable of performing meaningfully and effectively in the vocation that chose me; indeed, if anything I think it makes me more effective.
So should Hillary be President? Answering that question demands consideration of a whole range of factors -- policies, values, character, instinct, what I like to think of as "center of gravity", and a person's ability to persuade and, more importantly, inspire -- just to name a few. My own assessment of those criteria, as I said, has floated me toward a different ripple in the candidate pool. Just because a person can cry doesn't necessarily mean she or he can be President.
But God save us from electing someone who can't.
1 comment:
True. We recall how "robotic" Gore appeared throughout the 2000 campaign, especially juxtaposed against a more relaxed, albeit goofy, Bush. Would a tear or two have allowed Gore to capture the precious few votes he needed to ultimately win the election (rather, win the electoral college)?
Post a Comment