32 SAN JOSE MAGAZINE JANUARY 2006 date? character before he or she is elected so that we can predict behavior after he or she enters office. When pre- and post-election actions of an elected official mirror one another, then we tend to feel that we?e working with a ?traight shooter.? When elected officials do things differently from our expectations, we question their character. If, for example, a politician claims ignorance, lies, or distorts their response from the truth, then he or she lets us down. On the other hand, if a politician is asked about a problematic situation and owns up to it, then he or she has good character. Simply put, character is about living up to what you say you are. To be of good character doesn? mean that you?e cast in political concrete. Sometimes an elected individual intends to vote for a bill or sign a piece of legislation, only to find out that political realities keep him or her from carrying out the commitment. And sometimes, someone campaigns with a certain promise, only to learn upon election that the situation is considerably different than he or she originally thought. The political reality of compromise can dictate strange conclusions, but that doesn? equate to an absence of character as long as the elected official explains why he or she felt compelled to take a different path than originally planned. These days, good character is not always in abundant supply. When then-president Bill Clinton attempted to equivocate a question about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky by responding with ?t depends what ?s? is,? he showed poor character for ducking the issue. Similarly, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger crowed that he would never stoop to taking money from ?pecial interests? only to accept contributions at twice the rate of his predecessor, he showed poor character for doing exactly what he said he wouldn? do. And when San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales claimed he never secretly agreed to any increase in garbage fees with Norcal Waste Systems, Inc. only to be proven otherwise, his behavior moved into the poor character category, too. In each of these cases, the ?rime? was not nearly as serious as the questionable way the issue was addressed. Deceit, half-truths, complicated shades of gray, and the withholding of relevant information are all illustrations of poor character. When we see it once, we worry that we?l see it again, and just like that, the person with poor character is not to be trusted in the way that he or she was before. Most of all, when we feel betrayed by elected officials, we feel duped by the political process as well. Yet, it? not the political process that? at issue as much as our willingness to buy what? sold without serious scrutiny or examination. All of which takes us back to the elections looming this year and a prescription for minimizing the election of people with poor character to office. As we consider the candidates, we may want to do a bit more detective work than in the past. Here are four attributes that may be worthy of examination: ? The candidate? past. As the old saying goes, leopards don? change their spots. If the candidate has been found in questionable situations in the past, that? a warning that there may be questionable situations ahead. ? The candidate? supporters. If you?e comfortable about the people or major interest groups supporting the candidate, chances are that you?l feel comfortable with the candidate, too. Most of us like people who do as we do. ? The candidate? enemies. If the candidate? enemies are people or groups you don? like, you?e probably in the right company by supporting him or her. ? The candidate? language. The harder it is to figure out what the candidate is saying, the more you wonder what he or she is not saying. That? reason enough to stay away. To be sure, political party affiliations, interest group association, and values are all important reference points for deciding if we?l vote for or against someone. But they?e not the whole story. By taking time to examine the character of the candidates, we can avoid putting questionable people into positions of authority. More significantly, such action moves us from the passive observer role to the active citizen role. And if you don? investigate because you ?on? have the time,? complaining about dubious behavior later will carry little sway. Choosing leaders with care now can go a long way toward preventing problems later. It? work to be sure, but it? worth it, given that we are selecting people to make policies for us. Come to think of it, it? a small price to pay for the large benefit of good government. Deceit, half-truths, complicated shades of gray, and the withholding of relevant information are all illustrations of poor character. When we see it once, we worry that we?l see it again, and just like that, the person with poor character is not to be trusted in the way that he or she was before. UPFRONT Larry N. Gerston is a professor of political science at San Jose State University and political analyst at NBC11.