This is one I've been going back and forth on in my own mind for quite some time. I usually publicly express support for authenticity in politics (candidates who speak their minds, aren't afraid of backlash, those who break the mold, etc). And yet I wonder.
Because on some level to me, it seems like a lot of that authenticity is merely posturing of a different nature. A different calculation. It's like they've said "well, the boring, safe political prototype has run its course. I think I'll present a different persona and see if the voters bite."
Witness Dean. It seemed like he was totally full of passion. Everything he did seemed off the cuff. Then again, it seemed to me like he was very calculating when it came to his assessment of the importance of his Christianity and faith to him. It seemed like a lot of things were very calculated about him, and yet he was the poster-child of political authenticity.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this topic? How important is authenticity in politics, if at all? Do you want leaders who stick to a script, or those that come across as more "real"? On another level, do you ever feel that what may come across as "off the cuff" might actually be part of another kind of script, a script that makes everything look unscripted?