How often do the campaigns damage the candidates?

It strikes me that it is time to look at the way candidates for the presidency are sometimes damaged by the process, at least temporarily and perhaps permanently. Yes, we are all no doubt flawed and it is wise to maintain that awareness and remain alert, to conserve a hint of cynicism. But it seems unfortunate that in filling this position, which is so important not only for the US but for the rest of the world (which does not get to vote), the process so often erodes the principles. It reminds me of something that often struck me about the academic tenure process — the number of people who, having entered a field because they loved it and loved research, ended up alienated from both.

Before launching into this subject, I want to record a realization I had during the planning for my own wedding, now almost fifty years ago. It was a big event and my husband and I took a look at every detail to make it personal rather than following standard models. But at a certain point it occurred to me that the event did not belong to us, was not about us — like any shared ritual it was the property of a larger community who would weave it into their own systems of meaning, from the couple that broke up the evening before to the couple that gathered up the food after the reception and took it to a Democratic party meeting in Harlem — both true examples. We could only hope that the concept of marriage we were projecting did not subvert a good relationship but rather helped the first couple think through what they really wanted in useful ways, and that the food was both portable and appetizing when it arrived. I started asking not only what would feel right to us but what the guests would make of it.

I think the same thing is true of a political campaign. If we, as a people, own the process, we need to examine it. We refer to the candidate as the party’s “standard bearer.” But the candidate becomes in some degree the creature of his or her handlers, the people who have staked a big chunk of their lives on victory. For some it is a doorway to power — you have to win. For others it is a test of their capacity to hope and invest passion in the future of the society — you must not disappoint or disillusion. They become very possessive during the campaign — access to the candidate is an asset they control — and the candidate must at some level realize that he/she is theirs, belongs to them, and that “the hopes and fears of all the years are met in” the results.

Consider Gore — he seemed to project less conviction and to be less human as the campaign went on, like an actor who could not take direction and just got stiffer. Kerry also both lost both clarity and humor. I think the same problem affected McCain, so that someone who had been regarded as sincere and principled came to be seen as tarnished and compromised. He looked more relaxed after conceding than he had looked for months — his hands were no longer locked in fists. It can’t be good for anyone’s head to become a creature of Karl Rove. And surely the idealism of the young people risking a political commitment after years of apathy has been sustaining for Obama, and is part of the reason for the hope so many place in him. He remained remarkably on key, not just on message. Let us hope both that his principles remain firm and that those who are cheering now continue to sustain him in integrity and clarity of vision. Yes, he will lead, but the leader belongs to the led.

How often does the process subvert the goal? Somehow this reminds me of No Child Left Behind. Is it just the money or does the problem run deeper? What can be done?