The Psychological Assessment of Political Leadersresults in focusing more attention on the other two character ele-
ments as possible sources of useful distinctions. Certainly, specific
ideals and values would seem to be a more variable and therefore
more useful tool to differentiate among candidates, as would capac-
ity for remaining faithful to ideals and values.
This brings us to a second important point about the framework.
The relationship of its two major elements, character and perfor-
mance, is contingent. Character is a constant. Ambition, character
integrity, and relatedness are central parts of anyone's interior psy-
chology, regardless of the political roles being analyzed. Yet, the
reverse is not true.
Different roles call on character psychology differentially. One of
Bill Clinton's ambition-supporting skills was his verbal facility, cer-
tainly important for a political career and particularly important to
the leadership performance dimension of the modern presidency.
Bob Dole, on the other hand, had a number of skills to support his
ambition, but being articulate was not among them. In a governing
context in which "going public" is one key tool of presidential lead-
ership, to be inarticulate is a terminal disability. Yet, public verbal
facility as an ambition-supporting skill was clearly less important in
Dole's role as Senate minority/majority leader than it was for his
attempt to gain the presidency.
The framework begins with the view that essential performance
characteristics of different political roles are different for each role.
The two chief dimensions of presidential performance are judgment
and leadership. Are these two dimensions equally important for
judges and members of Congress? That remains to be seen. One
might argue that leadership, or judgment, is important in both these
public roles and perhaps others as well. However, judicial or con-
gressional leadership would seem to differ from each other, and both
differ from leadership in the presidency. Just as each character ele-
ment requires understanding in the context of a specific individual,
so too does each element of performance to which it is tied.
Finally, there is the question of whether this framework is useful
cross-culturally. Would the three elements of character help us to
understand political roles in, for example, India or Brazil? The focus
on character arises from the fact that performance measures of role
enactment are always dependent on the particular nature of the role
in its historical, political, and cultural context.