27
Joel L. Fleishman
sufficient reason, an ethical reason, to hold public office, and that it is ALWAYS
the mission commitment of a candidate that redeems whatever amount of ego
motivates a candidate and transforms self- interest into public interest.
Why is that so? Because it is only those candidates who are motivated by
mission who will not so easily, so casually trim his or her sails with regard to the
positions that are central to his or her mission. He or she will not so willingly sac-rifice
the goals of the mission in order to attain the glory of office. Those who do
sacrifice the goals of the mission in order to achieve election have to be suspected
of being motivated more by ego than by mission in the first place.
The great recent exemplars of mission- oriented politics in North Carolina have
been Terry Sanford and Jim Hunt. There is a reason that they are both called North
Carolina’s “ education governors.” In both of them, ego was secondary to their
passion for improving education and jobs in North Carolina. They ran for office IN
ORDER TO improve education. They did not run for office in order to fuel their
egos; their egos were served by their dedication to improving education. It was that
mission commitment that was the be all and end all of their ambition for public of-fice
and NOT the reverse. It was their mission commitment that redeemed and trans-formed
their quest for positions of power through which to achieve their missions.
The Hebrew word for public official is Nasi, which is the same word the Bible
uses for clouds. Using the same word for clouds and political leaders connotes the
fact that, properly speaking, public officials are raised like clouds into the skies,
elevated above all others for the sole purpose of conferring benefits on the public as
a whole, just as the clouds benefit the land by shedding its rain on the crops. As a
famous Rabbi said to two students whom he was seeking to persuade to take a com-munal
position, “ You think it is honor that I offer you but it is not. It is the far wor-thier
role of public service that I offer you, the opportunity to SERVE the public!”
Not only are the motivations that characterize the for- profit sector corrosive
of the public and nonprofit sectors, but there is a persuasive argument that they are
also serious threats to the for- profit sector itself. As Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi