Just came across this post about Authenticity in politics. Potter makes some good points, but I think there’s something he’s missing.

“Authenticity” is one of those political buzzwords; it doesn’t actually mean anything. Voters don’t want a politician who is ‘authentic’ (whatever that means). What the voters want, what I think some people are trying to get at when they say ‘authentic,’ is someone whose concept of what the job is is at least similar to the voter’s.

That’s it. Not someone who is ‘honest’ or ‘authentic’ or ‘true to himself.’ Just someone whose view of what the office holder should be doing is similar to what the voter thinks the office holder should be doing.

Let’s assume most voters have some idea of what problems they would try to fix if they somehow found themselves holding high elected office. The details will vary depending on the particular voter, but let’s say our hypothetical voter has this mental ‘to-do’ list of what they would do if they had the power:

1. Create jobs.

2. Get ‘us’ out of [whatever war happens to be going on at the moment].

3. Reduce healthcare costs.

Etc. Basically, the voter may not have much idea how to go about actually fixing these problems, or achieving these goals, but pretty much every voter has some idea of what problems they think need solving.

This is where the disconnect comes in. Right or wrong, most voters think that most politicians’ to-do list after taking office looks more like this:

1. Pay off favors to corporate paymasters.

2. Pay off favors to special interest groups that donated a lot of money to my campaign.

3. Secure funds for next election.

4. Bang a few interns.

You may notice that there is little overlap between these two lists. That’s the problem. Voters don’t give a shit about ‘authentic.’ They just want someone who they think will actually try to solve the problems they see.

A politician who sees the job as being about solving problems, not about just getting elected.