Ecclectica » Political Leadership and the Chauncey Gardner Index

by Dr. L. P. Visentin
President, Brandon University

L. P. Visentin

"Only fables present the world as it should be and as if it had meaning." Kurt Gödel

Why are politicians and politics held in such low regard by the general populace? Is it the politics or the politicians? Is it the lack of leadership or something else that jaundices our opinions of this class of individuals? What constitutes good leadership in this odd "democratic" parliamentary system of ours? Perhaps it's the high expectations that we have for the democratic system and the simultaneous recognition that the system and individuals don't meet our standards that causes this free-floating anxiety and ennui. Then again, what are the characteristics of good leaders? Would we recognize a good leader if he/she walked into our lives? Do we get the leaders we deserve?

Walt Kelly's Pogo might have crystallized the problem when he stated, "we have met the enemy and he is us." More than any other words written by Kelly, it perfectly sums up an attitude towards the foibles of the "we" and the nature of Homo sapiens. Insofar as political leaders are products of their times, who echo and mirror the prevailing philosophies and cultures from which they arise, should we be surprised at what we get as leaders? In the academic world, faculty in general look for a set of characteristics in their leaders often stemming from Posner's indices of leadership qualities: honesty, competency, forward looking, inspiring, intelligent, fair minded, broadminded, straightforward, imaginative, and loyal. Nowhere does it mention character, charisma and common sense, those intangibles that make for believability and trust.

Our collective hope for our political leaders is that they embody all of Posner's qualities plus character, charisma and common sense. Unfortunately, as voters we are too far removed to assess whether any of the indices obtain for any leader. We see and hear only the superficial posturing, rhetoric and spin. It is a confection served cold by the image-makers, greedily consumed by the fawning press and regurgitated on demand, to be swallowed by the unconscious consumer. Then we vote.

In the academic world, politicians are very much like Deans, many of whom have the qualities outlined above but are often plagued by "feet of clay," a critical character flaw in an otherwise heroic individual. The latter is a biblical reference to the feet of an idol dreamed of by Nebuchadnezzar and taken as an omen of impending disaster. Former University of California President Clark Kerr saw the role of a Dean in these terms "he wins few clear-cut victories; he must aim at avoiding the worst than at seizing the best. He must find satisfaction in being equally distasteful to each of his constituencies; he must reconcile himself to the harsh reality that successes are shrouded in silence while failures are spotlighted to notoriety. He must be content to move the whole enterprise another foot ahead in what often seems an unequal race with history"

For Deans who balked at such a taxing role, Damian Fandal, Dean of Academic Affairs at the University of Dallas, advised succinctly: "There are two rules for Deans:

Hide!

If they find you lie!"

Many of us would recognize this as a well-established political technique, which along with bafflegab, are the tools of trade for our political parties. Add a large dose of censorship, membership gags and stifling of debate, and then you get close to our current political strategies for leadership.

Lest you despair, leadership is more than a collection of words and list of qualities. It is about human relationships, and in that context the work of Daniel Goleman on "Emotional Intelligence Theory" merits some examination. Goleman defined emotional intelligence as "a capacity for recognizing our own and others' feelings, for motivating ourselves, and for managing our emotions, both within ourselves and in our relationships"

The term encompasses the following five characteristics and abilities:

Self-awareness--knowing your emotions, recognizing feelings as they occur, and discriminating between them
Mood management--handling feelings so they're relevant to the current situation and you react appropriately
Self-motivation--"gathering up" your feelings and directing yourself towards a goal, despite self-doubt, inertia, and impulsiveness
Empathy--recognizing feelings in others and tuning into their verbal and nonverbal cues
Managing relationships--handling interpersonal interaction, conflict resolution, and negotiations

Again, it is hard to know whether any leader actually exhibits such qualities since we the voters only ever see a "public face", painted on for mass consumption. Likewise, we can only guess whether a leader is coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, or coaching, to take from the vocabulary of Goleman.

The truth is that we know them only by how they are portrayed by the press and their image-makers. Appearances and utterances are everything. In ancient times appearances were a measure of the person, and the eyes were the portals to the soul. However, in the present, speech is more important than anything else. What you say is a measure of how and what you think about. Seems simple enough. Not so! One needs only to listen to George Bush for 30 seconds and you realize there is less there than meets the eye.

Leaders seem to speak in code and, when pressed, fracture the language in unimaginable ways. We suspend belief in the hope that what we heard is just a case of "foolin' around" as Cathy Jones of "22 minutes" would say. Unfortunately, distinguishing between "simple bullshit", "complex bullshit," and lying takes some talent and knowledge. See Laura Penny's "Your Call is Important to Us". It also helps if you know the history of the speaker and his/her motivation. Words, attitudes, body language all come in to play when trying to get a true picture and establish an overall gestalt. Here is where some acquaintance with the Chauncey Gardner Index becomes an indispensable tool. Chauncey Gardner you ask? Say what?

Chauncey Gardner is a Peter Sellers character from the movie, "Being There," a rather subtle film that offers some keen, satirical insight into the nature of identity and the human dependence on style over substance. Chauncey, a simple gardener who has learned everything he knows from television and gardening, is taken as a deep thinker by the press and the public. Everyone around him interprets his statements as his own personal philosophy about life, the economy, politics and love. He becomes the talk of the country, a genius, and someone with a political future!

It sounds all too familiar doesn't it? The Chauncey Gardener Index is an aide to reading through the superficial, to the heart of the matter: credibility, truth and the Canadian ideal in politics. Leaders in Canada are mirrors of the Canadian ideal. In some respect they are "us, at least they think they are. What is behind the mask? Where are their souls? Uncover the soul and you understand what motivates the voter. Here are the factors embodied in the Chauncey Gardner Index with an explanation to boot. Add it all up and you have a true way to measure the leadership potential of all candidates. Measure your Premier against it; better yet, measure your candidate.

The Culture Coefficient (also known as the Philistine Number): Any indication of valuing art, music, poetry or ethnic food. Hockey does not count as culture.
Bullshit Constant (Bafflegagging multiplied by lying). Remember: Complex Bullshit is not lying.
Bully Barometer. This is the "I run the show" tendency. Reporter or protester-punching ability times loud pushy shouting can be an indicator, except if they deserved it. The press often deserves it, especially those that live on handouts. The inverse is the "shut out" technique: where you stop doing press conferences, feed them releases, gag backbenchers and answer only your own questions.
The Faith Factor is a very important indicator. The individual dismisses reason and cites blind belief as evidence for reality. Those that hide behind this factor believe that humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs and that all science is theory. Very dangerous when combined with points 1 and 2.
The Promotion Quotient. For these people any political job is a promotion. It's usually difficult to tell what this person's talents are since the CV is usually murky and devoid of facts.
Fix-it- Probability. What is this person trained for? Beware the career of the "consultant" and head of odd foundations. It is usually code for something suspiciously arbitrary. It is rather important that leadership candidates were actually successful in their own right, at something like a profession or a business. Don't get carried away by the latter since in recent times characters from this class have shown that they have a tendency to loot and run.
Degree of Photogenicity. Unsymmetrical people with pear shapes and beady eyes make poor leaders or at least scare the babies. Too white is also a defect as is the tendency to avoid mirrors.
Vision Index. No vision means no imagination. These people parrot gurus and live in the past.
Shoe/Sock Combination. This is a very important indicator. Black lawyer shoes (brogues) with white socks is an unforgivable sartorial sin. Do not, I repeat, cast your vote for these villains. If the shoes don't match, beware.
Humor units. Do not trust any person without a sense of humour. The simple rule is if he can't laugh at himself he's unworthy of being Canadian. That is after all, our defining trait.
Rhetorical Ratio. This is a simple task. Count the words to message/meaning. If he can't say it simply, he's lying or about to lie.
Nerdness Number: We need more honest politicians with high integrity and a sense of wonder. Cynicism is a disease and danger. It is time to look for a leader with a sense of mission. Honesty times intellect is what the young people in the country are looking for. Give it to them.
The Toronto/Montreal Dimension. This is a reality test for any leader. Have them go down into the subways in these cities, sit in a subway car and look around. If they can't figure out what Canada is about they should get up, get out of politics and save us the trouble of voting them out of office. They should also remember that Prairie dogs don't vote and that lying is not a virtue.

To get the Chauncey Gardner Index (CGI), score 10 points for each of the above and solve the equation CGI = TMD x 1/NN x RR x 1/HU x SSC x 1/VI x DP x 1/FIPx PQ x FF x BB x BC x CC

My fondest hope is that voters might be able to solve the equation and give us the leaders we deserve. We have many provincial elections slated for the coming months and a federal one looming in the distance. Solve equations? I don't think so. Given our math skills that is a tall order. As I sit here and listen to the conversations around me I'm faced with another reality. Here is what I hear.

"You know he isn't that bad. So he hasn't done anything but I like his hair".

"His Hair? I hate his moonie eyes and the way his hair sits on his head. It looks like a helmet. "

Good luck to all of us!

The perfect leader has a score of 42 - which is, as you know, the secret of life. As Kurt Vonnegut might say, "so, it goes".

VOTE!

Recommended Readings