Last time there was a presidential election I was asked to answer this question: “What is the most important quality for a president?” Since we are in the midst of presidential election season again I have been thinking about my answer. Turns out, I still think the answer is “candor.”

I believe that there are so many qualities that are important for someone to be a good president that it is difficult to choose just one as the most important. But, if forced to choose, I would say that the most important quality for a president is candor. Candor has three possible definitions, according to Webster. All three of them are applicable to the qualities necessary to be a good president. The first definition is “brilliance,” and is often used in reference to a candle. Just as the United States should be an example to the rest of the world just like a shining city upon a hill, the president should be an example to the people of the United States. His light should shine brightly for all of the people to see. That does not mean that everyone will necessarily agree with him or even like him, but it does mean that he should lead in such a way that he is a shining example to the people of someone who has accepted the responsibility with which he has been entrusted and is doing his best to carry out those responsibilities to the best of his ability.

The second definition of candor is “freedom from prejudice or malice.” The president certainly should satisfy this definition as he must completely put aside any prejudice or malice he may have and seek to make every decision by reviewing the facts, the information that is available, and the input of his advisers and then acting in the best interest of the country and in accordance with its laws. By no means does this mean that the president cannot disagree with a law, if he feels that the law is not in the best interest of the people, and it does not prohibit him from working to change such laws. But unless and until such laws have been changed the presidents must act in accordance with the law without prejudice or malice.

Thirdly, candor means “unreserved or honest.” The president should always be honest and forthright in word and in deed. The president should make his positions known and he should stand by them; they should not change with the polls or with the audience. A president who has candor respects the citizens, speaks to them honestly and stands by his convictions. He is open, honest and real.

If I could choose only one quality for the president, it would have to be candor. What do you think…what’s the most important quality in a president (or someone who would like to be president)?

I am interrupting my reflections on my reading over the past five years to take a look at last night’s Iowa Caucuses.

I love presidential politics, so I might be blogging along these lines off and on all year. You certainly aren’t required to agree with me (or even read my thoughts!) but I hope my ramblings will prove thought-provoking and perhaps prompt you to look into the candidates and the issues more deeply yourself…because I can respect a voter who disagrees with me, but have trouble with a voter who is uninformed.

First of all, let me say that I am a fan of the Iowa Caucuses. I have been on both sides of the debate as to whether or not Iowa should get to be the powerful voice that it is in presidential elections, because I think there are legitimate arguments to be made for the “first in the nation” vote to rotate each time so that different states and different voters get to have the influence of that first vote. That aside, whether it is in Iowa or elsewhere, there is something powerful about the personal level of politics required to be successful in Iowa, and I happen to think that the caucus system is more effective for the initial vote than a primary would be, so I have no qualm with that. At the same time, I have to say that voter turnout for the Iowa caucuses tends to be relatively low, and–surprisingly, in my opinion–it was no higher this year than it was 4 years ago, despite the strong opinion among many that real change is needed in America.

Having attended undergraduate school in Des Moines, Iowa, I have some personal experience with the Iowa caucuses, too. To my absolute astonishment, there were precincts in and around Des Moines in 1996 who had no one to be in charge of the caucus meetings. As a result, a number of political science students from Drake University–including me–had the opportunity to get quite involved. I was not a resident of Iowa, so I could not vote, but I was in the position of checking voters registration, leading the caucus meeting, counting the votes and calling in the results. Pretty cool stuff! Even more surprising than the fact that there were some precincts with no one charge, there was one precinct meeting where no one showed up to vote. The precincts in that particular section of Des Moines were small enough, and ideal potential meeting locations rare enough, that two precincts were meeting in the same building. That turned out to be quite fortunate for me and the other student from Drake assigned to the building, since we were both able to be involved despite one having no one in attendance. But the bottom line is, whoever shows up gets one vote…and last night’s results clearly showed that one vote does make a difference, since Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum finished the night separated by only eight votes.

This was a surprise to many people, because Rick Santorum has consistently polled in the single digits, and he has been banished to the far end in every debate thus far. However, Santorum has campaigned consistently and persistently in Iowa, visiting every county in the state (and most of the Pizza Ranches, apparently) holding more than 300 meetings with voters. He does very well with local politics, and he has a clear and consistent message that many voters find appealing.

Still, there are plenty of people already saying Rick Santorum’s showing in yesterday’s Iowa caucuses will have little or no meaning on the rest of the campaign, presenting nothing more than slight bump in the road to Mitt Romney’s inevitable nomination. I have to disagree, and a deeper examination of the results of the Iowa vote reveals why: Quite simply, Santorum has broader support among the GOP candidates than anyone else.

Look at the numbers from the polls:

* Among men, Santorum and Romney each received 23% of the vote, just one percent behind Ron Paul’s 24%;

* Among women, Santorum and Romney each received 26% of the vote, 6% ahead of Ron Paul’s 20%;

* Among Republicans, Santorum received 28% of the vote, 1% more than Romney, and double the next closest candidates (Gingrich and Paul at 14% each);

* Among Conservatives, Santorum received 27% of the vote, 5% more than Romney and 9% more than Paul;

* Among young voters (17-29), Ron Paul was the runaway winner, with 48%, but Santorum was second at 23%, 10% more than Romney, the next-closest candidate;

* Among voters 30-44, Santorum was the winner with 29%, 1% more than Paul but 10% more than Romney;

* Among voters 45-64, Santorum was just 1% behind Romney (26% to 25%) and 8% ahead of Paul;

* Romney was the clear leader among voters 65+ with 32% of the vote, but Santorum was second with 19%, ahead of Gingrich (17%) and Perry (12%) and Paul (11%);

* Santorum was the clear winner among Evangelical voters, with 32% of the vote to Ron Paul’s 19%. Romney and Gingrich each had 14% and Perry 13%;

* Santorum finished third among non-evangelical voters, behind Romney (38%) and Paul (26%), and third among non-Tea Party voters behind Romney (44%) and Paul (21%);

* Santorum clearly won the Tea Party vote, with 28%. Romney and Paul each received 19%;

* Romney narrowly edged Santorum among college-educated voters (26% to 25%), but Santorum narrowly edged Romney among those without a college degree (23% to 22%).

Santorum’s only areas of huge weakness in Iowa were Independent voters, who went overwhelmingly with Ron Paul, and moderate voters, who gave a combined 74% of their vote to Paul and Romney. Among Independents, though, Santorum received 13% to Romney’s 18%. And Santorum did not finish lower than third in ANY category of voters. He finished third in four categories…but Romney finished third in three. Ron Paul’s lowest finish was fifth, among voters 65+.

So what can we take from this as we look ahead? First, Santorum is unlikely to perform as well in New Hampshire as he did in Iowa. New Hampshire is an area where Romney enjoys considerable support…support that will only be enhanced by John McCain endorsement of Romney there today. McCain has long been a New Hampshire favorite. However, along with Michele Bachmann announcing the end of her candidacy today and Rick Perry expected to do the same, McCain’s endorsement of Romney is actually likely to benefit Santorum. Many Republican voters, and particularly those who were drawn to Bachmann and Perry, voted against Barack Obama more than they voted for John McCain, and they tend to look at Mitt Romney the same way: he is better than Obama, but if there is another option they are likely to go that route. And right now, there are other options. Ron Paul will continue to generate his share of votes, because he appeals to a unique niche of voters and has a very unique message, but he will not be the Republican nominee, and will be unlikely to pick up much support from from the exit of Bachmann and Perry. New Hampshire is Jon Huntsman’s one chance at a decent showing, but it will end there for him. If he doesn’t finish second to Romney it will be a loss, and even if he does finish second, it won’t likely generate any additional success thereafter. Huntsman is the epitome of what many call a RINO, a Republican in Name Only, on many issues, and he simply isn’t going to find broad support. Gingrich has a chance to try to redeem himself in New Hampshire, but he seems more likely to devote his attention to defeating Romney than actually winning himself. And that, too, will only help Santorum.

Looking past New Hampshire, Santorum is likely to perform much better in South Carolina. There is a large number of voters in South Carolina among the constituencies in which Santorum scored well in Iowa, and if he can manage to pull off a finish in the top three in New Hampshire he will be in great shape heading south. Even a top-four finish is unlikely to hurt him.

This is crunch time for Santorum, though…especially at the two debates this weekend. Santorum will no longer be on the sidelines of the debate, and he will have to get more time and attention from the moderators. Gingrich isn’t going to attack him, and Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman will likely continue to direct their more aggressive attacks on Mitt Romney. (Paul already minimized Santorum in his speech to supporters last night, saying he does not have the funds for a national campaign). Santorum needs to stick to his message–repeating the themes of his speech last night–and stay true to his positions. He does have some things in his background that he will need to explain, most notably his past endorsement of Arlen Specter, but he is now primed to be the most likely candidate to emerge as an option to Mitt Romney for any GOP voters who aren’t considering Ron Paul’s candidacy a serious option.

As Santorum said last night, “Game on.”

Having spent my entire professional career working with children–and more than half of it to date in a residential setting–the fact that medication is the quick and easy solution pursued by many parents and physicians for misbehaving children is not news to me. When I started teaching in 1998 the letters ADD (attention deficit disorder) were just starting to be widely used (at least in a context other than math class!) Since then, we have added a letter, and now there is also a diagnosis of ADHD…attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. There are a variety of drugs that have been developed for the treatment of ADD/ADHD, and sadly I think I have probably encountered children on all of them (and some children on more than one!) What really shocked me, though, was a report I recently read stating that the American Academy of Pediatrics is now recommending that doctors should begin treating ADHD in children at age 4 if behavior therapy fails to be effective.

According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine, ADHD “is a problem with inattentiveness, over-activity, impulsivity, or a combination.” As the father of a 4 year old and as someone with fifteen years of experience working with children (I worked in summer day camps before I started teaching) I would submit to you that inattentiveness, over-activity and/or impulsivity are normal traits of childhood development! Are there times that I wish my son did not have quite so much energy or was a wee bit more attentive to my instructions? Ummm, yeah. Most days, in fact. Do I think he needs to be medicated? Nope. It has never even crossed my mind. And if it crossed someone else’s mind and they suggested it to me I would (politely, I hope) invite them to mind their own business.

The National Library of Medicine, by the way, states that in order for a diagnosis of ADD/ADHD to be made the symptoms described above must fall outside the “normal range for a child’s age and development.” NLM goes on to state that ADHD affects 3-5% of school aged children. Now, there is considerable debate among the medical and mental health communities as to what really qualifies as ADHD behavior, or even, in some cases, whether or not ADHD is a legitimate disorder since the precise causes of it are not known. That is a discussion for another day and time. For the sake of this argument, let’s assume that ADHD is real and that it is caused by a variety of things including genetics, diet and environment. (Incidentally, that is the position to which I hold. Since this is my blog, it works nicely that way). Even assuming that, though, it is startling to see that, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health, many more children have been diagnosed with ADHD than should have it.

The NLM, remember, indicates that ADHD affects 3-5% of school aged children. The CDC survey, which reported by state the percentage of youth 4-17 who have ever been diagnosed with ADHD, had 5.6-7.9% as it’s lowest reporting threshold, and even then only eleven states fell within that range. Put another way, only 22% of U.S. states have a reported percentage of children diagnosed with ADHD that falls within a range that begins higher than the stated highest percentage of children who should be affected. Another twelve states reported 8.0-9.5% of children 4-17 having been diagnosed, and twelve more reported 9.6-10.9%. That leaves fifteen states reporting between 11.0 and 15.9% of their 4-17 year old children having been diagnosed with ADHD. Yes, thirty percent of U.S. states have had two to three times more children diagnosed with ADHD than likely have it (even assuming the high-end “normal” percentage of 5%)!

I want to stress two points. First, I am not suggesting that ADHD is bogus or that children should never be medicated. I have worked with enough children, and seen the benefits of medication in enough cases, to know that medication is sometimes a necessary part of helping individuals to behave and focus. God has blessed humans with the ability to think and to develop scientific solutions to problems that years ago had no known treatment, and for that I am thankful. Furthermore, medication can sometimes bring a person to the point where other interventions can enable additional progress that could never be made without medication. Just a few days ago I spent forty-five minutes on the phone with a young mother with a six year old son who has been diagnosed with ADHD, adjustment disorder and pervasive development disorder (NOS). Her son had also sustained a serious head trauma at age two, resulting in a subgaleal hematoma. I do not doubt that that young man requires not only some medication but some intensive treatment to help him be able to function in a normal and healthy manner. What I appreciate about his mother is that she wants to get him the help that he needs but also wants to make sure that he is not just arbitrarily prescribed the latest ADHD drug or sent to the most convenient treatment facility. She called me, despite the fact that I am 1500 miles away, because she knows me and knows I would do anything I could to help her make the best possible decision for her and for her son. Other times the diagnosis is not nearly as serious as that but there is a legitimate need for medication in order to overcome a chemical imbalance. There is no shame in utilizing or even seeking medication when it is genuinely necessary.

The second point I want to make, though, is that medication is not the answer most of the time. As a society we have allowed ourselves to digress to the point where we are too often unwilling to put concerted time and effort into solving problems, preferring instead to have a quick and painless solution. After all, we can watch hundreds of channels with the movement of our index finger, we can heat our food with the push of a couple of buttons, we can communicate around the world via text, voice and/or image with a few key strokes…so why not get our children to behave by giving them a pill?

The sad truth is that most of the medications prescribed for ADHD, and especially in the earlier years of such treatment, were never tested on children. Translation: we have no idea what the long-term ramifications of years of taking this medication will be on today’s children. An equally sad truth is that we are allowing parents to abandon their God-given responsibility to raise their children. Raising children, by the way, requires time, effort, patience, perseverance and discipline. Some years ago I had the opportunity to listen to Dr. Malcolm Smith talk about working with youth, and I also had the opportunity to sit beside him at a dinner and talk about this issue. Dr. Smith has spent the majority of his career working with the most violent children in the United States–those you have heard about on the news for killing their parents, teachers and classmates. He has also maintained a private counseling practice. He is squarely in the realm of those academics and practicioners who might be expected to tout the benefits of prescription medication to help children behave. But he is not. In fact, what Dr. Smith said, more than once, is that the most effective method of working with children who are inattentive, overactive and impulsive, is “consistent, loving discipline over time.”

It’s no coincidence that is also what the Bible says….

As a general rule, I intend to avoid getting into overtly political discussions on this blog. Not because I do not have views or thoughts on the political scene, believe me. I just think there are more appropriate times and places for those discussions than this forum. That said, I am going to stray a little bit into politics in this post as part of making a larger point.

A few weeks ago I found myself in a (mild) debate on Facebook with some folks I do not know. It stemmed from comments they and I made on a link shared by a mutual friend. This friend is a minor celebrity in the world of Southern Gospel music, so he has lots of “friends” and very few of them do I know. (In case you are wondering, though, I do actually know the individual who posted the link. He went to high school with my brother and his parents attended the same church we did for a while). He had posted a link to an ad on YouTube for Newt Gingrich, with the commentary that Mr. Gingrich’s understanding of our government is impressive and his message is one the American people need to hear.

The ensuing debate stemmed from my comment, in response to a number of other comments posted before mine touting Mr. Gingrich’s vast experience, education and knowledge, pointing out the Mr. Gingrich is indeed brilliant, but that there is no way I could support him for President of the United States. Why? Because in the 1990’s, Speaker Gingrich was an outspoken leader in the move to impeach President Clinton for his behavior with Monica Lewinksy, though at the very same time Mr. Gingrich was involved in an affair with one of his congressional staffers. Mr. Gingrich is now married to said staffer, who is the third Mrs. Gingrich.

Shortly thereafter the debate began. Another “friend” commented that, in her opinion, Mr. Gingrich would do a wonderful job running the country. She then said, “We are now talking about the personal lives of politicians! Most of them have had, [are] having or will have affairs!! It is very wrong of them, but most of the people on FB are divorced, some on their second or third marriages, we cannot hold that against them!! Most politicians personnal lives stink!! I will vote for the man qualified to help us not have another 911, and help us get jobs back and will do everything possible to keep America safe!” She then thanked me for my comment.

As someone who relishes a good debate and someone with very definite opinions on almost every political issue, I could not resist responding. But the truth is, I felt compelled to respond because the position shared by this individual is one so overwhelmingly common in the U.S. today. When it comes to the personal lives of politicians, I must say I think they DO matter, particularly when their personal lives are evidence of hypocrisy in the extreme (such as Gingrich having an affair with a staffer while suggesting Clinton should be impeached for the same thing). I would have to say I cannot accept the assertion that “most” politicians have had, are having or will have an affair, either. (And even if I did agree with that, I would resist the implication that we should accept that as the new norm). To the best of my knowledge, by the way, Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Ron Paul are all still married to their first spouse. Should that be the exclusively deciding factor in who to vote for? Probably not. Am I saying I would never vote for someone who has been divorced or even someone who has had an affair? No. But I do think it is relevant.

After I shared these thoughts, the fellow friend replied that she thinks divorce is wrong, and that we could find something about each candidate that we do not like. But then she ended with this thought: “I wonder what is more important, The corruption and indecency of our elected officials or the state of our Nation?”

Well, there is the rub. The truth, I believe, is that the two go hand in hand. If we have corrupt or indecent elected officials should we be surprised that we have a morally bankrupt nation that holds firmly to relativism and denies absolutes? If we have elected officials, or individuals running to become elected officials, who have no problem violating a sacred oath made to a spouse, should we trust them to keep their promises to the nation? Scripture makes it clear that human government has been instituted by God, and believers have a responsibility to submit to those in authority. But believers also have a responsibility to be wise and discerning, to examine all aspects of a candidate’s record, and to vote their conviction in accordance with their understanding of biblical principles and the candidate’s words and deeds. I don’t want to tell you who to vote for; the beauty of a representative democracy is that we each have the right to vote for the candidate that we think will best carry out the duties of the office. But please, in thinking through your decision, do not fool yourself into thinking that there is no connection between corrupt, indecent or immoral elected officials and the state of our nation.