OKC Mayor reevaluates presidential selection criteria: character, competence, commitment
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA (KOKH) — Oklahoma City Mayor, David Holt, discussed his process of choosing a presidential candidate in a recent opinion piece published by the Philadelphia Citizen.
In the piece written by Holt, the mayor points out the differences he has seen across presidential elections in his lifetime.
I viewed policy as the differentiator between candidates. Issues like a strong national defense, limited and competent government, fiscal responsibility, personal freedom, and a free-market capitalist economy all weighed heavily on my vote. It is only in 2016, 2020, and 2024 that I have been forced to recognize that there are criteria inherently more important, criteria that I took for granted. These criteria could be thought of as the three Cs: CHARACTER, COMPETENCE, and COMMITMENT to our form of government.
Holt stated that he had cast votes for George W. Bush, served in his White House, and continued to support him for re-election.
Additionally, as a lifelong Republican, Holt attended the 2000, 2004, and 2008 Republican National Conventions and served as a member of the Electoral College from Oklahoma, voting for Mitt Romney.
He said in the article that despite supporting the Republican ticket, he had never assumed that the opposing side lacked "the three C's."
"I realize now in retrospect that for the first four presidential elections of my adult life, I thought very little about these virtues," Holt said. "I simply took for granted that both leading candidates possessed them."
When looking back on his time as a voter, Holt lists the things he took for granted about typical elections.
As far as character is concerned, Holt listed the following:
I took for granted that both leading candidates had a personal story, career, and behavior that I would be proud for my kids to emulate.
I took for granted that both leading candidates shared what they sincerely believed to be the truth, and either felt a moral calling to strive for truth in their statements, or at least feared accountability if caught lying.
I took for granted that both leading candidates had a heart for service and that personal monetary gain was always secondary.
I took for granted that both leading candidates fundamentally respected all Americans, desired unity, and would at least attempt to foster it. Though reasonable people would disagree as to how successful they would be in meeting the needs of different constituencies, I took for granted that both leading candidates would at least hope to be a president who worked for the betterment of all Americans. I took for granted that both leading candidates would never dehumanize their political opponents, would treat their opponents with basic respect, would not call their opponents names, would never use words like “evil” or “enemy” to describe a political opponent, would never question motives or portray policy differences in apocalyptic terms.
I took for granted that both leading candidates would at least rhetorically maintain America’s longtime moral clarity regarding brutal dictators around the world, and would not just refrain from praising them, but denounce such people when necessary.
He continued to list that he took for granted the "minimum level of competence" required for the presidency, the intelligence needed to grasp the complicated role, the humility to defer to experts where they lacked knowledge, and the way leading candidates, "communicated in an intentional, thoughtful and coherent way."
When discussing competence further, Holt said:
I took for granted that both leading candidates were relatively effective managers of people. I took for granted that even if they had differences with their subordinates, that their subordinates still fundamentally respected them and would always support their continued service as president.
I took for granted that both leading candidates were strong and confident leaders, and would never need to bully people, make grandiose claims about themselves, or seek flattery — all textbook behaviors of insecure and weak people.
Concerning commitment, Holt noted that the distinctions between the candidates should be nonexistent.
He emphasized the state of the world in which, "any leading candidate would have ever publicly called for the Constitution’s termination."
"I took for granted that both leading candidates respected the democratic process and term limits," Holt said. "I took for granted that both leading candidates would accept a loss, graciously congratulate the victor, and if necessary, peacefully transfer power."
Continuing his discussion on the importance of a president's commitment, Holt stated that candidates used to respect the military, respect the press, and respect the law.
"I took for granted that both leading candidates respected the rule of law and deeply understood the concept that no president is above the law, and how that fact is fundamental to our unique national story," Holt said.
Perhaps you are like me and you look forward to the day when we can again look beyond the three Cs and consider policy as our presidential differentiator. We should all work towards that day. But that day is not November 5, 2024. On that day, I will hold fast to what is good. On that day, I will vote for virtue.
Read Holt's full opinion piece here.
For more local news delivered straight to your inbox, sign up for our daily newsletter by clicking here.
