by Michael Kazin

If recent media reports are credible, several of the leading candidates for president are conniving, unpleasant frauds. John Edwards feels uncomfortable around gay people and made millions working for a hedge fund while supposedly dedicating himself to fighting poverty; Hillary Clinton didn't bother reading the intelligence report on Iraq before voting to authorize the war and has stuck to her marriage only because it might help her get elected; and Mitt Romney reverses his positions on key social issues and explains it as a maturing process. I assume we'll hear analogous tales about the other contenders before the year is out. Such news--as predictable as the rising cost of campaigning--raises a troubling question: Is it possible for a serious candidate for the White House to be an authentic personality? Or does the pervasive, unending scrutiny of contemporary politics insure that there will always be a large gap between public image and private reality? To most Americans, the question would probably sound naïve. Of course, all politicians are phonies. But this was not the norm throughout most of our history. So far as we know, in private, such celebrated presidents as Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Truman rarely spoke and acted in ways that directly contradicted how they represented themselves to the world. And, on a scale of authenticity, a succession of losing nominees--from John Quincy Adams to William Jennings Bryan to George McGovern--were far superior to the men who defeated them. But perhaps the worry and cynicism themselves are wrongheaded, vestiges of a Victorian moralism that was always rife with hypocrisy. Shouldn't we focus on a candidate's current positions, intelligence, and judgment instead of feeding on every personal anecdote? To be honest, I really can't make up my mind.