Theoretically, that should be a straightforward question that any voter should be able to find the answer to on any given candidate in any given race. Unfortunately, the answer to that simple question either isn’t truthfully given, or gets lost in the mountain of soundbites and mud. During the 20 odd years that I spent working various campaigns, I always asked this question, and refused to continue working for any candidate that didn’t answer. That left me with quite an interesting list of motives for running for public office.

Rather than boring everyone with a veritable laundry list of replies that I’ve gotten to that question over the years, I’ll quickly summarize based on how I have categorized them. I can’t emphasize the importance of theses answers and categories enough, primarily because the answer to that single question has invariably said more about every candidate I’ve dealt with directly than anything else. Although I typically despise the practice of pigeon-holing people because it is often inaccurate on one level or another, in this situation, it really hasn’t been. So here they are, for better or worse.

Person for the People – These are few and far between. Candidates that honestly say that they are running for office to be a public servant, and don’t just say that because they know that’s what the people want to hear, are arguably the best politicians. The devil’s in the details here, since you can’t take just the answer to the “why” question with these people. These are the candidates that either don’t go dirty at all, or only start slinging mud when cornered completely. This group is also where you’ll find the majority of candidates that are actually highly qualified to do the job. My best example of this kind, for better or worse, is a candidate that ran for tax collector in our town years ago (she still holds that office now.) She had a strong background in accounting, and was on a first name basis with many residents before she ran. Like others of this kind, she considered herself a proactive stakeholder in the future of the community, and relied on her honesty and experience to win the day. Although I never met or spoke with her, I suspect Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski may be one of these, simply because she didn’t go dirty.

Rock Star – These are the true narcissists. They might come out with the “right” answer for the why question, but it’s delivered with a wink and a smile. And it’s obvious it’s a performance. Charisma is the primary gift for these people. They make people feel good about everything. But in the end, it is all just words. The only redeeming factor is that these folks honestly believe that they mean to do well – they just don’t have a realistic plan on how to do it. They focus on the show, giving a great performance during the campaign, but once the vote is over, they’re lost. I don’t think I need to name an example on this one.

The Veteran – Most of these are former military, but some come from government jobs in general. They sell themselves as understanding the system because they were part of it. The problems come in when the offices they are seeking involve a lot more than just the comparatively small portion they know very well. Beyond military and government people, this is also where you’ll find other professionals from business, medicine, etc. While some quickly discover they are “beyond their depth” when they take office, this is the group that tends to overcome problems. They are some of the most driven people – most likely to join the “Person of the People” politicians in a “never say fail” attitude. Their answer to the “why” question is sincere, and they’re another group that is typically last to the mudslinging game.

The Common Candidate – These used to be in the minority, but thanks to Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement, they’re coming out in droves. Previously, these were people that probably shouldn’t have placed their names on the ballot in the first place because they were woefully unqualified to do the job. One I placed in this group before was a mentally challenged gentleman running for town council. In his case, there was no answer to the “why” question, primarily because he didn’t really have one. I’m putting the new breed we’re seeing today with him, not because of lack of intelligence (at least not in all cases), but because while he couldn’t answer the question himself, I knew he was running because he was angry at how the council was running things at the time. These are the “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore” candidates. Given that motive for running, they should be considered with at least a little bit of suspicion. It’s fine to agree with their sentiments, but there are consequences to putting them in office. If they don’t get swept up in the political machine, and just become more cogs, they’ll throw monkey wrenches. While people might think that would be a good thing, unless they’re in the majority (which they won’t be), they won’t have the power to cause change. These are the true idealists – the modern day “Mr. Smith’s”. Reality is that we have a two-party system, and are not at the point where a third party will be capable of being a meaningful player. Just remember, anger, even if justified, is negative. Negativity, by nature, can only cause more of the same. While most in this category are just plain angry, there are some that are just righteously indignant. It’s a fine distinction, but extremely important. The more vicious the rhetoric, the more dangerous the candidate is the rule of thumb to follow here. The jury is still out on what sort of politicians these people will be.