Startling True Confession: I Am A Candidate Advocate

I wasn't always like this. I still remember what life was like before this overcame me. I remember when I used to wear political buttons that NEVER had anyone's name on them - unless of course I hated them. Even now, after three years of living this way, it's not easy for me to describe how the change happened, or exactly what came over me, that turned me from being a more or less normal political activist into, well, into being a Clarkie.

There I said it. Yes I'm a Clarkie. I admit it. I, Tom Rinaldo, am an advocate for General Wesley Clark. The thing is, I won't surprise anybody by admitting this. Everyone around me already knows it. If you've read any of my writings over the last few years, then most certainly you know it too. Because that's the thing about being a candidate advocate; it's not something one can really hide. Even if you think you are being quiet about it, even if you are careful how much you say, or what you reveal about your motivations for saying it, no one who encounters you is fooled by false attempts at subtlety. People know a candidate advocate when they see one. There is no point in hiding from the truth, ugly as it may appear to some.

I know what some people say. They say "You can't trust him, even when he appears to be making sense, you know he's REALLY trying to help his candidate." I've been called - I might as well not mince words here, biased. People have even accused me of picking favorites. And just the other day, in a place so much like this one that it might even have been this one, I heard candidate advocates like me described as APOLOGISTS. It's enough to force some serious soul searching. After all, I proudly call myself a political activist, but have I lost my cynical edge? Can I really be an activist without it? Can I admire and respect a person who runs for high public office for my own reasons, instead of theirs? Can I advocate for someone without becoming a slave to them?

These are all serious questions, but all of them avoid dealing with the root causes of candidate advocacy, and political science has identified several possibilities, with research still ongoing. The simplest cause to identify (and the easiest to cure through cold turkey total withdrawal) is Money. Money can instantly turn an independent critical thinker into a "paid staffer" working to advance another person's political agenda. I've looked at that possibility in my own case, but my bank account is still empty. Hard as I have searched I can find no evidence of anyone paying me to advocate on their behalf.

One of the more popular theories out there is that candidate advocacy is caused by a political strain of celebrity worship. In this theory, candidate advocates live vicariously through the lives of the candidate they choose to advocate for. Their identity becomes merged with the person they advocate for. If that person is doing well, they are doing well. If that person is doing poorly, they are doing poorly. I know there are people who look at me that way. You may even be one of them. By that reasoning I could just as well quit politics for sports, throw away my Wes Clark Button, and put on a Payton Manning football jersey instead. Same difference. Intellectual functioning diverted to reptilian brain, with primal emotions ascendant over any rational thought.

One problem with that theory, at least in my own case, is that celebrity worship in all of it's many forms tends to be a disorder that emerges early in life, remaining more or less constant throughout adulthood, though the actual object of personal worship may from time to time be updated and replaced by a more current example of celebrity. For me, there was absolutely no prior indication of susceptibility to celebrity worship based candidate advocacy in my life before the approach of the 2004 Presidential contests, and the subsequent emergence of Wes Clark as a Democratic candidate for President. None the less this type of disorder can be difficult to totally disprove as the root cause for candidate advocacy, especially to an observer with a predisposition to already believe that candidate advocacy IS a political form of celebrity worship, case closed. To such observers candidate advocacy is a problem to be cured, not a cause to be celebrated.

There is another somewhat radical theory to explain candidate advocacy, though, that flies in the face of theories that presume the phenomenon to be at root pathological; one that says candidate advocacy in not always symptomatic of one's desire to surrender control, abdicate free will, and/or suspend critical judgment. This theory holds that candidate advocacy can be a rational response to complex frequently negative social issues that threaten to otherwise overwhelm an individual who, left to his or her own devices, can not muster sufficient power and influence to alter prevailing negative circumstances in a manner that can provide meaningful relief. In this theory the candidate in question becomes a means rather than an end in itself. In this theory a symbiosis exists between a candidate and his or her supporters, with all parties openly and sometimes even honestly using each other to achieve mutually beneficial goals. What results is a tactical, and in some cases even strategic, alliance of shared interests.

That's the theory I use to explain how I became a candidate advocate. You may see me differently, but since the issue is out in the open now, we can discuss it further if you wish.

Say, in the event General Clark becomes president, how will you react to other's perceptions of failure, mistake, or misdeed on his part? It seems to me that by investing yourself so much in him, there is a risk of altered perceptions on your part. Alternatively, you might share their perceptions, and feel whatever emotion arises from them even more intensely because of your investment.

I have no blind loyalty to General Clark. I'll give you a clear honest example of that. Had Wes Clark decided that his future energy policy would depend heavily on the rapid expansion of nuclear energy as a future source of power, I would have shifted by primary support away from him in favor of Al Gore. Nuclear power is a very important issue to me, I already put years of my life into opposing it's expansion, some of that full time. I didn't think Clark would take that position, but in an era in which some say that nuclear power is an answer to global warming (which I dispute, but I don't want to go off on that tangent here), I wasn't 100% sure where he stood on this until he spoke more directly to it. That could have been a make or break issue for me.

I disagree with Wes Clark from time to time and have said so in public in writing when I do. But overall I still hold him in high respect. When we disagree, up until now at least, I can understand why he took a different stand than mine, and I can respect at least the integrity of his position if not always the exact full substance of it. My willingness to identify myself as an advocate of Clark does not mean I abandon my own perspective. It simply means that after years of close study and contact with him, I have as much or more faith in his good intentions and judgement as I can of any person I believe has a realistic chance to be elected President of the United States. My reactions to others perceptions of Clark of course will vary with the perception being talked about. If they unfairly strike agaiinst the core of who I now know him to be, chances are I will react strongly, but I hope also fairly in my own case.

Respect in a way has some of the disadvantages of love. If you never really love anyone the chances are pretty good that you can prevent being heart broken by anyone, but at a cost. If you never allow yourself to truly trust or respect anyone, the chances are pretty good that you can prevent becoming disillusioned by someone or feeling betrayed, but again at a cost.