Character, Competence, Conviction

June 15, 2024

HERE'S MY TAKE

Elections are upon us. Americans have their president (and 13 governors) to vote for in November. In October, voters in B.C., Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick will elect their representatives for provincial legislatures, and on June 24, voters in a Toronto riding will vote in a federal byelection with dozens of candidates on the ballot. Theoretically, we could also have a federal election at any time in Canada.

And that's not counting any municipal votes along the way. The question all voters face, of course, is how to determine which candidates deserve their support.

The 3-C framework in the title of this week's Insights is my formula for making that decision. I first used it a few decades ago when asked in a public, Christian forum whether I'd always vote for a Christian candidate over a non-Christian. My simple answer is "no," but I explained that this was because I evaluate candidates based on “character, competence, and conviction, and in that order.” Simply put, you need all three Cs, so I wouldn't automatically vote for someone who shares may faith simply on that basis.

It starts with character. By this I mean not just the “fruits of the Spirit,” markers most commonly thought of as “Christian character,” although to be clear, I do start with them. Non-Christians can demonstrate secular versions of many of these. I don’t use a religious test before voting for any candidate. I look for integrity, respect for others, and concern for their neighbours, especially those on the margins, as evidence of character. A few decades ago, I declined a ballot in a provincial election, even though I wanted the candidate’s party and leader to form a government. (I did make a special trip to the voting station so as not to have my concerns interpreted as apathy, but then did not fill out my ballot so that my “none of the above” concerns would be registered.) I could not in good conscience put my 'X' behind this local candidate's character.

But leadership character goes beyond personal character. Effective leaders have a deeply embedded mix of prudence, courage, and mission-focus. This can be difficult to evaluate. Most of us don’t get to personally know the candidates on any ballot. Even if we diligently do our homework, personal character is often masked by political marketing. The quip “character is best measured by how someone behaves when nobody else is looking” is useful if we had a chance to see, but then someone would be looking. Many of us have wounds caused by someone we mistakenly thought to be of solid character. 

That’s where the other two “C’s” come in. When voting, I am not only looking for a person of character but also one who displays genuine competence. Governance requires certain skills. No one in my church should bring a car to me for repairs, no matter how highly they regard my character. Likewise, I am not going to vote for a fellow Christian who does not have the competence or skill set required for good governance. We need good mechanics and we need capable leaders in government. While good decision-making competency can be learned and cultivated, basic competence (at a degree proportionate to the position being voted on) is a prerequisite, not just a “nice to have.” There are lots of fellow Christians who carry out their callings in wonderful ways, but should never run for office. If they do, I should not reinforce their lack of self-awareness by voting for them.

Which brings us to the third C: “conviction.” Conviction is multi-dimensional. It involves the candidate’s take on current issues. It involves the priorities they articulate, the issues about which they are more convicted and passionate than some other issues. Conviction is important but it is also contextual. What I think and how high that ranks on a list of priorities changes. In the U.S. election of 2000, President George W. Bush was elected on a domestic policy agenda. Nine months in, 9/11 occurred and political convictions about what needed to be done next changed for everyone. My convictions about a political priority list today can be changed by the events of tomorrow. Or it can be new facts coming to light about a situation that change my mind. Good leadership and solid conviction is willing to adjust to the present reality and circumstances. They are not checklists of promises that are filled out in response to a candidates’ survey responding to a request from a lobby or interest group. 

Two things brought this 3-C framework to mind this week. First is a bit of pushback I received in response to last week’s Insights. That editorial reflected on how the decision of the jury to convict former President Trump exemplified the decline of our politics from any normative standard relating to the public good. I try to keep these musings non-partisan and so carefully avoided calling out the character of either Mr. Trump or his prosecuting accusers. A few readers weren’t pleased and let me know (which I do appreciate.) In their view, Christian commentators “need to call a spade a spade” on matters of character.

That exchange was in the back of my mind while I was in Washington, D.C. this week, participating in a faith and institutional investment summit. To my surprise, one of the panellists detailed the criteria for investments used by the fund he had set up in 2014: “character, competence, and conviction, and in that order.” His point was that when making capital investing decisions, the “pitch” usually comes in the context of convictions, with some passion about a problem and a solution that the proponent puts forward. But the decision to invest really hinges on an assessment of character. This substantial investment fund exists to deal with the assets of those who are very public and articulate about their faith. This was how they translated their faith into investment decisions. “It’s not what you do but who you are that ultimately determines the extent of positive impact your leadership will have. We’d rather go with competent leaders of character and travel with them, even if things don’t work out exactly as planned, than to hitch our wagon to companies with leaders whose character we are not confident of.”

I don’t want to elevate an alliterative triad, which I originally used as a rhetorical tool, into a formal system or theoretical framework for Christian decision-making. In fact, I suspect that I originally borrowed “character, competence, and conviction” from something I had read or heard, although I do not recall. It is a tool I’ve used since to make my political and personal choices in my professional life. Hearing total strangers use it as a formal investment decision-making template reminded me that regardless of field or industry, so much of leadership is about evaluating and making judgments about the character of others with imperfect data. 

This 3-C triad evolved from a convenient rhetorical tool and memory device to something I use in various contexts. These three ingredients aren’t all equal. There is an element of alignment required for each, but competence can be taught (after a minimum level is met). Convictions can change with persuasion and new facts. But character is the most basic material we have to work with. Not that it can’t change over time, but it takes time and a close relationship to really know someone’s character, something that isn’t usually available to those who need to make political or business decisions. But that challenge doesn’t negate its importance. It’s one of the reasons that when it comes to questions of character, I am more inclined to trust my gut over my reason than I do on the other two. 

Character, competence, and conviction—not a shared identity is what guides my choices. That is not to say I’m ready to stand in judgement of other people’s characters. I’ve been wrong often enough and disappointed too many times (sadly in the past few decades by multiple Christian leaders whose leadership I admired only to learn later that I was being duped) to be overly confident in my judgement. Nor is it my place to make permanent judgements about people. God is on the throne and He can make judgements without my help. So, I will take special care and caution, especially in a public forum, to make pronouncements on character, even when in my own mind the evidence seems quite compelling. I will draw attention to the evidence and then let others draw their own conclusions.

WHAT I’M READING

Dutch Pragmatism Regarding Populism

November’s elections in the Netherlands saw Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party, commonly described as an anti-immigration right-wing populist party, win the most votes but still possibly unable to find the required coalition partners to form a government. After Wilders announced in March that he would not insist on becoming the prime minister, negotiations resumed. Recently it was announced that Dick Schoof, a senior civil servant about to retire, would become the prime minister in a coalition government in which half of the cabinet will be non-politicians. The Economist describes the compromise as producing a “half-populist, half-pragmatist” government. Quite apart from the content of the policies that emerge from this arrangement, it will be fascinating to watch how the non-politicians navigate the very tricky politics that this arrangement sets up.

Sins of the Educated Class

I highly recommend David Brooks' New York Times column discussing the disconnect between university-educated elites and the working class. He highlights the contradictions that flow from the “educated class” defining virtue as being anti-elite, which produces a “cognitive dissonance that has a radicalising effect.”

Learning from History

Last weekend’s Guardian contained a longer read, 'We're in 1938 now': Putin's war in Ukraine and lessons from history, wondering whether the mistakes of treating various conflicts then as isolated events is being repeated in our times. There is plenty of nuance distinguishing our times from those, but there were elements of the analysis that deserve further reflection. Hat tip to the reader who challenged me to write a response. Perhaps my linking is falling for the “lure of an easy peace,” which to be fair, the article would say is a feature of our times.

Learning from Our Mistakes

Navigating the polarised tensions of the Hamas-Israel conflict ever since the hostage-taking events of October 7^th is difficult for many leaders. Within Cardus, this has also posed challenges. Although foreign affairs is not a primary file, there are expectations within our community for us to help frame the issues. On this week's Whole Person Revolution (a podcast of Comment magazine of which I am the publisher), I discuss with my colleagues the challenges leaders face in dealing with these complex issues, reflecting on our own mistakes and what we might learn from them. It’s an hour-long podcast but I hope it is helpful both on the Israel-Hamas issue, and more importantly, on the challenges of leadership in polarising times.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

Go South Young Man

Tyler Cowen drew my attention to data showing Canadians emigrating to the United States in record numbers. The suggestion is that Canada’s comparative high tax rates are the cause and that the émigrés that Canada is losing are the higher-earning innovative types it is trying to recruit from elsewhere. I suspect there are a mix of reasons, and it would appear the proportions between emigrants born in the U.S., Canada, or elsewhere isn’t changing significantly. There appears to have been a bit of a decline in the overall rates between 2015 and 2021. The pandemic undoubtedly was a factor. My anecdotal impression is that the politics of the pandemic engendered the most discussion of cross-border envy than I can ever recall hearing in the past.

TAKE IT TO-GO

Capital Puns

I’m writing Insights from my Washington D.C. hotel room, here to participate in a conference and various meetings. Capitals and conferences conjure up images of stuffy rooms of important people debating motions—and that certainly is true—but you need to amend that perception to allow for the punslingers. There’s at least one in every crowd. And if I may draw the assembly’s attention to the matter, it’s no capital crime to lighten the mood.

I’ve spent the better part of three weeks in formal meetings: a legal symposium, Cardus board meeting, my denominational synod, and this week a Cardus executive meeting, followed by a Christian finance conference. I’m thankful that the schedule for the week ahead involves desk work and not meetings, but that doesn’t let us off of the hook for being candid about the curious practices that formal meetings evoke.

I’m not going to call out anyone specifically—that would be a sure violation of Robert’s Fools of Order. Some meetings include coherent (cough, cough) motions that go something like this: “I want to make a motion to post indefinitely this out-of-order motion to table.” The clerk and the chair, trying to make sense of what that actually means, are nearly literally falling off of their chairs.

In fairness, those are the exceptions. Generally speaking, meetings with motions are serious business, documented by precise minutes, and preserved for posterity. While it seems appropriate not to take ourselves too seriously and to poke a bit of fun at our meeting colleagues, it is important to point out that the only record that a meeting actually happened is the minutes—even though those minutes feel more like hours.

 And with that, I make the motion to adjourn. The chair reminds you that Saturday mornings are when the Insights readers convene weekly. (Feel free to forward this along, inviting friends to subscribe and join us then.)

Moved, seconded, carried. Motion passes. Meeting adjourned.

‘Til next week.