Several weeks ago, I  wrote about the hazard of being seen as a hero. The downfalls of General David Petraeus and Lance Armstrong demonstrate this idea  quite clearly.

As Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker ponders whether to run in 2014 against Governor Chris Christie or Senator Frank Lautenberg, he is seen by most of the nation as a model leader who governs an efficient and clean city, while being a model citizen who personally comes to the assistance of victims of natural disasters and crime. However, as Kate Zernike of the New York Times reports, for all of his accomplishments, after six years in office there are still significant problems in Newark.

For example, she points out:

When snow blanketed this city two Christmases ago, Mayor Cory A. Booker was celebrated around the nation for personally shoveling out residents who had appealed for help on Twitter. But his administration was also scorned as streets remained impassable for days because the city had no contract for snow removal.

Additionally, she reports:

In recent days, Mr. Booker has made the rounds of the national media with his pledge to live on food stamps for a week. But his constituents do not need to be reminded that six years after the mayor came into office vowing to make Newark a “model of urban transformation,” their city remains an emblem of poverty.

It would be ludicrous and unrealistic to expect Cory Booker or anyone else to be able to clean up all the troubles in Newark. This city has been so troubled that it is sometimes referred to as “the armpit of the nation.” In 1967, a race riot resulted in twenty-six deaths. Schools are still wanting; the air is highly polluted, and considerable improvements are needed in the infrastructure.

Like all of us, Booker is confronted with the conflict between substance and image. It is the hope of virtually everyone to accomplish a great deal and to be recognized for having done so. If a person achieves a great deal without blowing her horn, she is considered modest or even withdrawn. That is acceptable, although some feel that it would be best to have others recognize genuine achievements, if for no other reason than to have a little more faith in human beings. If a person’s image surpasses the substance of her accomplishments, problems arise because she is seen as vain and self-promoting.

Booker’s performance is further described by Ms. Zernike:

A Stanford- and Yale-educated son of the suburbs, Mr. Booker arrived to suspicion when he moved into the Newark projects and made his unsuccessful first run for mayor. Lately, though, criticism has come even from those he won over: people working on the education projects he supports, council members who ran on his reform slate, business leaders and families who believed in his promise to bring “a renaissance for the rest of us” to a city plagued by self-dealing and mismanagement.

They say Mr. Booker’s frequent Twitter posts to his 1.3 million followers, his appearances on television and at gatherings of moguls and celebrities — he was out of town nearly a quarter of the time between January 2011 and June 2012, according to The Star-Ledger — have distracted him from the local trench work needed to push his agenda. Business leaders say he dazzles at news conferences, but flags on the follow-through. Residents have wearied of the outside fascination for the mayor whom Oprah Winfrey called “a rock star” and Jon Stewart on Wednesday referred to as “the superhero mayor of Newark.

One of the problems with our political system is that the demands of increasing awareness  and of raising money to run to office make it difficult for incumbents to do their day jobs. If Booker wants to become the next governor of or senator from New Jersey, he must tweet his accomplishments and make the rounds of the television circuit. He’s not alone in this regard. President Barack Obama could only spend a minimal amount of time at the White House while he was running for reelection in 2012. When he first ran in 2008, he spent only165 days in his Senate office as he planned and implemented his strategy to become president. That same year, John McCain was away from his “day job”s as he battled through primaries and into the general election.

What is most important for Cory Booker is to have a clear sense of self-realization. He has created a high bar for himself,  in being the working mayor of Newark and in letting the public know of his accomplishments. It is fair to argue that he can do more for the country as a governor or senator, and perhaps ultimately as a president by cultivating a highly visible public persona.  Unfortunately, until we adopt an electoral system such as England’s, in which campaigns are short (about three weeks) and inexpensive (very limited television advertisement allowed), we will have many candidates not tending to their day jobs.  If Booker recognizes the this reality, then the criticism of Ms. Zernike in the Times becomes somewhat moot. He is doing the best  he can. But if he becomes too enamored with himself, then he may well follow the misfortunes of Petraeus and Armstrong. Let’s hope that he makes discretion the better part of valor.

The post Cory Booker: It’s not easy being a political star appeared first on Occasional Planet.

How should we feel about an athlete who cheated to achieve fame and glory, but who also has been remarkably charitable? Such is the case with Lance Armstrong, the one-time winner of seven Tour de France cycling races. Unfortunately for him, the Tour itself, and fans of both, Armstrong’s wins were ill begotten. He cheated; he used performance enhancing drugs in each of the seven years that he won the race.

It’s natural to condemn an athlete for taking an unfair advantage over his or her opponents. He violated the rules as well as basic moral principles. But if he used the fame and fortune that he gained from his supposed accomplishments for the betterment of society, should we let him off the hook? Should we say that it doesn’t matter how he accumulated the money since much of it has gone to a worthy cause? Should we also give him a break on his cheating because cycling is a sport in which a competitor can justify using performance enhancing drugs because “everyone else is using them too?”

The public reaction has been mixed to Armstrong since the last of the investigations has ended and he has been found guilty. In a population which generally has a difficult time dealing with complex moral issues (or complex issues of any sort), many people have both condemned Armstrong while also showering him with adulation. Perhaps the American people are the real winners from “the Armstrong saga” because they have generally been able to see it clearly and they have the benefits of all the work that he has done to increase cancer awareness in the United States and beyond.

In 1996 when Armstrong was twenty-five years old, he was diagnosed as having stage three testicular cancer. It spread to his lungs, abdomen and brain. Armstrong chose an alternative treatment to avoid additional lung toxicity. If he was going to recover sufficiently to resume his cycling career, he needed to take special care of his lungs. Fortunately for him the treatment at the University of Indiana in Indianapolis cured his several cancers.

Even if Armstrong was taking performance-enhancing drugs, his performance at the Tour de France, other cycling events, marathons, and in several triathlons was remarkable. Like athletes in other sports who have taken various forms of illegal drugs such as baseball player Mark McGwire, Armstrong put himself through exceptional rigorous training regimens.

In June, 2012, Armstrong was charged by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency with using performance-enhancing drugs. In October he was found guilty of the charges and stripped of his seven championships in the Tour.

But while Armstrong was winning the Tour from 1999-2005 and in the years since, he established the Lance Armstrong Foundation and its Livestrong program to raise awareness of cancer and to support research and care for patients. Since its inception, Livestrong has raised over $250 million for its cause.

When Armstrong was found guilty of using illegal drugs while cycling, he resigned from all positions that he held with Livestrong. He said that he did not want his travails to reflect upon the foundation and its work. Currently Livestrong is reorganizing its governance and planning to proceed without Armstrong. It is hoped that despite the scandal that has shrouded Armstrong the Foundation will continue to receive its level of donations and will be able to continue with all of its work.

So is Armstrong both a heroic athlete and a charitable person? This is not an easy dilemma to reconcile. Fortunately, it seems that in this case, the American people are up to the task of dealing with a complicated issue.

The post Lance Armstrong: A moral dilemma for all of us appeared first on Occasional Planet.