Is there a true statesman in the current Democratic field or one that comes close to that mark?

I really don't know, Cruiser. All too often, one can't identify the true statesman until after they've had their chance, and sometimes not until a long time after.

I would regard Franklin D. Roosevelt as a true statesman. He had particularly vociferous enemies at the time (still does, for that matter), but he had the intelligence to see both the problem and the solution, and the force of personality and the persuasive ability to get the citizenry behind him. He explained in plain terms (in his "Fireside Chats" every week) exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. It made sense to people, he did what he said he would do, and it worked. Despite the fact that his solutions were exceedingly unpopular with special interests, and despite powerful opposition, he implemented the measures necessary to end the Depression and put people back to work. The prosperity of the Fifties had less to do with the aftermath of World War II than it did with laws that Roosevelt managed to get passed. His primary goal was to work for the good of all the people, not just special interests. ("Great God A'mighty, gonna need 'im again!")

Lots of people of both parties hated Harry Truman at the time, but history is beginning to examine him in a new light and it turns out that he was a lot better than people thought at the time. For example, he integrated the Armed Forces, not by dickering and debating with the Chiefs of Staff (as Clinton tried to do, and lost, on the gays in the military issue) simply by walking in, issuing an executive order (he was the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, after all), then turning on his heel and walking out. You may not have liked him, but you sure as hell knew where he stood!

Dwight D. Eisenhower had many characteristics of a statesman. He was perfectly willing to take an unpopular stand if he sincerely believed he was right. And although it was not in the interests of some of his supporters, he went ahead and tried to warn the country about the dangers of the military-industrial complex. These were truly prophetic words, and today we are reaping the bitter harvest of failing to sufficiently heed Eisenhower's warning.

John F. Kennedy got off to a pretty good start, but his life was cut short. He, too, had the intelligence and the charisma, and he showed strong evidence that his interest, too, was the good of the whole country. There are those who claim that he would have been one of the greatest presidents ever, but there are also those who claim that if given a few more years, his inadequacies would have become obvious. We'll never really know.

Lyndon Johnson? Some very good things, but some really bad things as well. Johnson was deeply flawed. Politician more than statesman.

Nixon? Ford? No.

I think Jimmy Carter, with his genuine honesty, sincerity, and concern, could have been a true statesman, but somehow he was never given the chance. I think he had the intelligence and the genuine concern for the good of the country, but perhaps lacked the force of personality.

There are those who regard Ronald Reagan as a statesman, but mainly what I saw Reagan doing was intentionally undoing much of the work of FDR, who put restrictions on the powerful special interests that got the country into the Depression in the first place. Reagan unleashed the Dogs of Greed and set the stage for George W. Bush and his extreme right-wing friends. Reagan's concern was not for the citizenry; he was concerned for the multinational corporations, and his administration also had a rather disturbing fundamentalist religious overtone—as does the Bush administration. They called Reagan the "Great Communicator," but I sure couldn't see it. An analysis of his speeches reveals that he spoke in strings of platitudes, bumper-stickers, and T-shirt messages without saying anything of substance. All frosting, no cake. Highly effective politician, but statesman? Absolutely not!

Bush Senior? Clinton? No way!

The problem is that one seems to be able to identify a true statesman only in retrospect. But—there are certain marks that may identify a politician who has the potential of being a statesman. Does the he or she genuinely seem to have the good of the people as a whole as a paramount goal? A bit hard to tell, because they all try to sound like they do. Listen to what they say. Then watch what they do. Personal integrity demands that they be consistent. Truth demands that they be consistent.

One possible test: when push comes to shove, will they take an unpopular stand on a matter of principle?   You can often tell a great deal about the character of a person by looking at the enemies he or she makes. Another clue: do they learn? Are they willing to change their minds? Kerry won a few points with me when challenged on voting in favor of the Patriot Act, by saying, without weaseling or equivocation, "I was wrong." He didn't just dig in his heels and try to defend it. Not that I'm necessarily recommending Kerry at this point, but I am watching him.

I don't know, Cruiser. I wish I did. I can't say that I'm greatly impressed with the current lot, but even the least of them I like far better than George W. Bush. Any one of them could emerge as a genuine statesman. Lieberman is probably the most conservative. Kucinich is probably the most progressive. As I keep saying, I will be working for and voting for whichever candidate emerges from the Democratic Convention. The main idea is that any one of them will be better for the health of the country and of the world than George W. Bush.

We've tried Bush, and he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the potential for statesmanship is not in him. Time to try someone else, before Bush and his friends finish turning this country to the neo-feudal state they seem to want.

Don Firth