“Hold fast to what is good.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:21
On January 20, 1989, I was so supportive of George H.W. Bush in his quest for the presidency that my fourth-grade teacher pulled me out of class and rolled a television in front of me so I could watch his Inauguration. As an adult, I have continued to take more than a passing interest in who serves as President of the United States, that person we choose from 337 million Americans to become the face of this great nation.
In 2000, I cast my first presidential vote for George W. Bush. From 2002 to 2004, I spent two years serving in President Bush’s White House, and then returned home to Oklahoma to manage what little effort was needed to re-elect him there. I attended the 2000, 2004 and 2008 Republican National Conventions. In 2012, I served as a member of the Electoral College from Oklahoma, voting for Mitt Romney. As an Oklahoma state senator, I successfully authored a law to eliminate the possibility of Electoral College members not voting as they had promised.
The American experiment has endured for nearly 250 years partly because presidents and presidential candidates have always, virtually without deviation, embraced its fundamental principles.
During this time period of my adult life that I am describing — across four presidential elections — 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.
The three Cs represent virtues, not policy positions. It is highly unlikely that the nominees of the two major political parties are going to hold the same policy positions, but it is entirely possible that they possess almost identical virtues. In fact, I realize now in retrospect that for the first four presidential elections of my adult life, I thought very little about these virtues. I simply took for granted that both leading candidates possessed them.
Taking character for granted
When it came to CHARACTER, reasonable people could attempt to draw minor distinctions in each election, but I took for granted that both leading candidates were good and decent people with integrity. I took for granted that even if they had made mistakes in their personal lives, they regretted those mistakes and they worked every day to be better humans. 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 meeting the needs of different constituencies, I took for granted that both leading candidates would at least hope to be a president that 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.
I took for granted that both leading candidates would have no tolerance for political violence, extremism, conspiracy theories, racism, misogyny and bigotry. I took for granted that both leading candidates would not only keep their distance from such ideas and those who espoused them, but would actively denounce them if needed. I took for granted that both leading candidates would at least strive to embody the established character traits of a good leader, including decency, empathy, honesty, competence, thoughtfulness, integrity, compassion, humility, civility, dignity, obligation, inclusion, love, selflessness, service, courage and aspiration. I took for granted that both leading candidates felt as I did, that centuries of experience and wisdom have proven these are the traits of effective leaders.
Taking competence for granted
When it came to COMPETENCE, reasonable people could attempt to draw minor distinctions in each race, but I took for granted that both leading candidates possessed the minimum level of competence required to hold the single most serious and powerful position in the world. I took for granted that both leading candidates had the intelligence necessary to grasp the complicated role they sought, or at least the self-awareness and humility to defer to experts when they lacked knowledge. I took for granted that no candidates suffered from the cognitive decline that unfortunately but inevitably strikes us in our later years. I took for granted that both leading candidates communicated in an intentional, thoughtful and coherent way — without gratuitous vulgarity — and focused their public comments on the important issues of the day.
For the first four presidential elections of my adult life, I thought very little about these virtues. I simply took for granted that both leading candidates possessed them.
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.
And, taking commitment for granted
When it came to a COMMITMENT to our form of government, I took for granted that the distinctions between the candidates would be nonexistent. The American experiment has endured for nearly 250 years partly because presidents and presidential candidates have always, virtually without deviation, embraced its fundamental principles.
I took for granted that both leading candidates held a firm commitment to the U.S. Constitution. I could not have imagined a world where 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. I took for granted that both leading candidates would accept a loss, graciously congratulate the victor, and if necessary, peacefully transfer power.
I took for granted that both leading candidates respected our military, would fulfill their role in our national defense and their obligation to guard confidential information they might have access to. I took for granted that both leading candidates valued our veterans and held most sacred our obligation to those who were captured or killed. I took for granted that both leading candidates would understand the vital role played by the press, and though differences were to be expected, I took for granted that all candidates would treat members of the press with respect.
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. For the first four presidential elections of my adult life, I took these virtues for granted. I have not had that luxury since.
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.
David Holt is the 38th Mayor of Oklahoma City. He will be the president of the United States Conference of Mayors in 2025-2026. He is married to a Philadelphia native (Rachel Canuso).
The Citizen welcomes guest commentary from community members who represent that it is their own work and their own opinion based on true facts that they know firsthand.
