Alex Pattakos, Ph.D., affectionately nicknamed "Dr. Meaning," is the founder of the Center for Meaning, based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and author of the international best-selling book, Prisoners of Our Thoughts (currently the national Top BestSeller Listing for nonfiction books in Spain), which is based on the wisdom of (and was personally encouraged by) his mentor, the world-renowned psychiatrist, Dr. Viktor Frankl, author of the classic best-seller, Man's Search for Meaning. A former therapist and mental health administrator, political campaign organizer, and full-time university professor of public and business administration, Alex has worked closely with several Presidential administrations on public policy matters, and served as an adviser to the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. He was also one of the initial faculty evaluators for the Innovations in American Government Awards Program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and has been a faculty member at The Brookings Institution. He is a past president of Renaissance Business Associates, an international, nonprofit association of people committed to advancing sound business ethics and elevating the human spirit in the workplace.

Guest Blogger Alex Pattakos--

As the plot of the 2008 presidential election thickens, it’s time to reflect seriously on the state of democracy in American society. In addition to relying on the “power of the people,” I suggest that we now need to tap into and leverage the “wisdom of the people” before we reach a point of diminishing returns. My fellow Americans, don’t be fooled; remember the warning, “let the buyer beware” (caveat emptor) before it is too late! While the doctrine of caveat emptor is usually concerned with our dealings in the world of business and commerce, it also can be applied to the world of politics, where leading and managing the public’s business, I would argue, is even more important.

So let’s consider the process of electing the President of the United States of America from the perspective of the “consumer,” especially the citizen who is “informed” about the candidates and issues and is “committed” to the core values and principles upon which our Nation was founded. What should this consumer be looking for and what should she and he be looking “out” for, in order to make a wise and, yes, responsible, choice on Election Day (be it in a primary contest or in the “general” election in November)?

In this regard, I would hope that voting for the President or any other candidate for elected political office is not treated the same as voting for a contestant on the popular television program, “American Idol!” Believe it or not, however, the inclination to view and elect candidates in this way is not that far-fetched. In other words, popularity often trumps talent even under the very best of circumstances. Discovering and understanding the underlying values that, ultimately, drive a candidate’s life and work are even more difficult to do than evaluating and judging a contestant’s singing talent. Let’s face it, it takes hard work to be a good citizen and a truly informed voter!

Frankly, we don’t really “need” to know contestants on a talent show at such a deep, existential level (unless, of course, such information sells newspapers and magazines, or improves television ratings!). However, we do really “need” to know as much as possible about the candidates who are campaigning for our support and vote, and who are trying to convince us that they are the “best” choice to lead the Nation and safeguard the public’s interest. In other words, it’s o.k. for us to want to know “what makes them tick,” what are the core values that matter the most to them, and what motivates them -- not only extrinsically but, more importantly, intrinsically. In point of fact, political candidates in a participatory democracy, by definition, rightly owe us this important information if they expect our personal and collective (i.e., public) trust. This seems like a “fair deal” to me; doesn’t it to you?

By what criteria then should we assess candidates, especially those who are seeking the highest office of the land, in order to understand their character and, by implication, their motivations? To be sure, we should expect, no we should demand, that they “say what they mean and mean what they say.” This threshold criterion, at its core, is the essence of personal integrity. As such, it helps to define and frame the boundaries of one’s character which, no matter what some political pundits may say, ultimately is more important than any policy stance that a candidate may take. Moreover, it is personal integrity and character that allow two other fundamental leadership qualities, authenticity and transparency, to surface for our review. Without meeting these fundamental criteria, how can we ever expect political candidates, let alone those who have been duly elected to office, to truly “walk the talk?!” In short, we get what we ask for, don’t we?!

Let’s now dig a little deeper and consider the “intrinsic” motivations that drive all human beings, including those seeking elected public office. In my book, Prisoners of Our Thoughts, which is focused on the human quest for meaning, I describe three “schools of thought,” actually referred to as “Viennese Schools of Psychotherapy,” that provide a very useful platform for understanding what determines people to think, decide, and act the way that they do. The first motivational mental model, known as the will to pleasure, can be traced directly to Sigmund Freud and his well-known “Pleasure Principle;" the second, known as the will to power, is the brainchild of Afred Adler, the father of individual psychology, who believed that people are born with feelings of inferiority and, therefore, spend their entire lives “striving for superiority” over others and their environment.

I’m sure that, like me, you can think of political candidates this election year who appear on the surface to be driven primarily, if not exclusively, by one of these motivational forces. In other words, they may appear to be obsessed with or fixated on power, possibly so much so that the end for them seems to justify the means. By the same token, candidates who appear to be primarily pleasure-driven may take joy in their opponents’ grief and anguish when their campaigns hit a bump in the road, stall, or even derail. And since the will to pleasure is associated with a wide variety of addictive behaviors, candidates who follow, albeit subconsciously, the Freudian School often become their own worst enemy (one need not go any further than former New York Govenor Eliot Spitzer for an illustration of the dangers that lurk beneath the surface of the Pleasure Principle!).

My mentor, Viktor Frankl, was the founder of the “Third Viennese School of Psychotherapy” (the predecessors being being the Freudian and Adlerian Schools). Importantly, to Dr. Frankl, both Freud’s will to pleasure and Adler’s will to power were manifestations of something missing. In effect, the need or drive to seek pleasure and the relentless pursuit of power were really just attempts to cover up, but not necessarily fill, a void of meaning in an individual’s life/work. Unlike either Freud or Adler, Frankl considers the main concern of human beings to be fulfilling a meaning and actualizing values, what he called the will to meaning, rather than simply the gratification and satisfaction of drives and instincts. Put differently, the will to meaning refers to the “authentic commitment to meaningful values and goals.”

Against this backdrop, let me propose a new “politics of meaning,” one that asks both candidates and the electorate to focus on the will to meaning rather than either the will to pleasure or the will to power. From a candidate perspective, this means that those seeking elected office should be willing and able to reveal their values and goals in ways that are authentic and transparent; they should be willing and able to articulate how their values and goals are truly “meaningful”; and they should be willing and able to demonstrate unequivocally that they are authentically committed to to these values and goals. From a voter perspective, this means that citizens must take their responsibilities seriously by being willing and able to do their due diligence on those seeking elected office, including careful and thorough examinations of personal character, and be willing and able to cast their votes accordingly. Only in this way will America be able to live up to the ideals of a democratic society. Only in this way will America be able to shift the focus of politics away from the magnetic draws of forces like pleasure and power towards an authentic commitment to meaningful values and goals. And only in this way will we be able to ensure that we are voting for the best person to be the President of the United States and not just an American Idol!

Related: The New Meaning of Retirement

              Our Crisis: Aggression, Addiction, and Depression