HOUSTON, Oct. 21 (UPI) -- Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry closed the final debate by recalling his dying mother's words that there is nothing more important than "integrity, integrity, integrity." While moved, many people were left wondering: "Yes, but what exactly was the point?"
That Kerry values integrity more than anything? That integrity is absent from President George W. Bush? Or was this a prime-time Freudian slip, his mother's words haunting him about his own deficiency?
This wasn't the first time. Kerry made integrity very personal in Boston when he said he would "restore trust and credibility" to the White House. Not so subtly, the senator reminded us of the president's own 2000 pledge to restore "integrity and dignity" to the Oval Office. A rhetorical shot across the bow began echoing in the unrelenting refrains of lies and deception launched toward his opponent.
But Kerry is a bright fellow. Surely, as a connoisseur of such matters, he must know, by definition, integrity is something more sweeping than truth telling. Otherwise we wouldn't call it by its name. Honesty would suffice. Integrity comes from integer, which is a whole number. Think oneness. It is the integration of beliefs into behavior, or in this domain, the integration of beliefs affecting how you govern and lead. Or as Webster's helps, it is not merely an honest man, but one "undivided." Integrity is being one person everywhere.
Let's take a logic inventory of the candidate who has adopted the mantle of "integrity" for himself. How much integrity does a man have who seeks to be commander in chief, yet sends a not so subtle message to 130,000 troops that we are in Iraq because we "want to be" not because we "have to be"? How much integrity does a man have when he votes FOR authorizing the war in Iraq and then tells the country (with troops listening) that they "don't have to be there?"
Which is it? Did. Kerry vote for the war because he "wanted to" or because he "had to"?
How much integrity does a man have who takes such pride in his Vietnam service, yet was utterly ashamed of the atrocities that he and others allegedly committed when he returned stateside? He believed in the war when he was there, didn't believe in it when he returned, but celebrates his service when it is popular as a presidential candidate. Is this the integrity he champions?
How much integrity does a man have who now says he believes that "life begins at conception," yet votes consistently to protect the termination of those lives, including repeated votes against the bipartisan ban on partial birth abortions? How much integrity does a man have who publicly defends traditional marriage, but with only a handful of senators votes against the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by President Bill Clinton), and then publicly claims to support traditional marriage? Some call this integrity. Most see it for what it is -- a divided man perched on a fence.
How much integrity does a man have who is proud of his Catholicism but rejects many of the church's explicit teachings? It is the same fellow who says he doesn't wear his "religion on his sleeve," slighting millions of Catholics and other believers who are actually not ashamed of their faith. Is he an earnest man of faith or a craven pragmatist who merely exploits its reputation for political value?
And, how much integrity does a man have who speaks so passionately about privacy rights yet for the sake of political expediency (in front of 50 million people) callously exposes the sexuality of his political opponent's daughter? Surely Mary Cheney never imagined she would become a poster child for lesbian rights simply because her father was in politics. But again, I suppose she never imagined a politician so attentive to the privacy rights of others on one hand, yet so blithefully dismissive of her individual rights when debate points were at stake.
Claiming the mantle of integrity has its hazards. Real integrity, like honor or humility requires no restatement or defense. It speaks for itself. "What you do," it has been said, "speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say." Kerry's recalls his mother's words of "integrity." The president summons up his grandmother's words echoing still today: "no one likes a braggadocio."
Integrity, and what it builds -- trust -- is like the finest crystal. It must be handled so delicately or the pieces may shatter becoming too sharp to handle. Kerry has succeeded in making "integrity" central once again, but not on his own account. Inadvertently, he nicks himself while trying to hold the pieces.
While picking up the sharp edges, he reminds of another who, whether you agree with him or not, has had the certainty of his convictions to lead in uncertain times. Kerry claims its value for himself. Bush would never speak of it, but actually governs and lives the kind of undivided constancy that qualifies it. Some prefer to call it "stubbornness." Most call it by its real name.
(Les. T. Csorba, a partner with an international executive search firm and is the author of "TRUST: The One Thing that Makes or Breaks a Leader" (Nelson, 2004). His Web site is at lescsorba.com.)
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
