-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
With so much attention being paid now to upcoming elections and candidates, a long-ago memory nudged me and made me think about what I would really like to hear from anyone running for public office.
Deep into my father’s first term as president, I met my parents, Ronald and Nancy Reagan, at their ranch near Santa Barbara one weekend. It was my father’s favorite getaway — more than Camp David, more than anyplace. He loved saddling his horse, riding across hills on trails he had helped clear. Even with Secret Service agents following him and the weight of the presidency leaning on him, it was, as he often described it, “in the same ZIP code as heaven.”
On this weekend, my mother went to bed early one evening, leaving my father and me sitting by the fireplace together, just the two of us. He started talking about the beauty of the ranch, how it restored him, filled up his soul in a way that no other place could. He had, at that point, recovered from John Hinckley Jr.’s bullets, which almost killed him. But he used the word “healing” in a way that made clear it was a continuing process for him, one that green rolling land and the endless sky made possible. As the fire crackled beside us and coyotes yipped in the dark distance outside, I asked him why, if this place was so necessary for him, did he want to be president, a job that obviously took him far away and limited his time on the land he loved.
He told me that he believed God had a purpose for everyone and that he had prayed throughout his life for some illumination of what his might be. He said he earnestly felt that he could help make the world a more peaceful place, a more civil place. Especially in the relationship between the Soviet Union and America.
This visit would have been sometime in 1983. Leonid Brezhnev had died, Yuri Andropov had taken over as the Soviet leader, and tensions were high between the two countries. As has been reported, my father had sent two letters to Brezhnev while recovering from the assassination attempt. One was a handwritten four-page letter, a personal plea for a better relationship between America and the Soviet Union. The State Department objected to the personal nature of the letter and drafted a more formal one. Both letters were sent, but Brezhnev’s reply was not exactly conciliatory.
In our evening conversation, my father spoke about his wish — his prayer — that someone would rise up to lead the Soviet Union whom he could talk to, someone with whom he could forge a good working relationship. Years later, I thought about this and how he was almost imagining Mikhail Gorbachev before probably even knowing of his existence.
Why did this whole reminiscence surface for me now, in this year of consequential midterm elections, leading into a presidential cycle? Because it illustrates the question that should be asked of every candidate, especially those running for president: Why do you want to do this?
Obviously, some will have canned answers, political slogans that have been crafted for them and run through focus groups. But I think people are perceptive enough to distinguish between a rehearsed soundbite and an earnest answer. Dolly Parton’s recent passing showed how deeply people are moved by one person’s resolve to help others, to make the world just a little bit better with kindness and compassion. What struck me about my father’s answer is that he reached down into his soul and spoke a deeply personal truth. No matter what your politics are, no matter what side of the aisle you’re on, that matters.
Part of our disillusionment right now is that we don’t know whom to trust. We don’t know who has been varnished and rehearsed and coached until their real self is buried under a thousand layers. Perhaps that one question might travel down through some of those layers and give us an idea. Why do you want to do this? It’s a simple question, and we deserve a simple answer.
Patti Davis is the author of “Dear Mom and Dad: A Letter About Family, Memory and the America We Once Knew.”
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The piece argues that the most important question voters should ask anyone seeking public office, especially the presidency, is a straightforward one: why do you want to do this?
- Drawing on a private conversation at Ronald Reagan’s Santa Barbara ranch, the article contends that Reagan described the presidency as a calling rooted in faith and a desire to make the world more peaceful and civil, particularly by easing tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, echoing themes in public accounts of Reagan’s motivations and Cold War diplomacy[1][2][10].
- The piece suggests that Reagan’s answer reached “down into his soul,” aligning his personal sense of purpose with a broader mission to restore American confidence and optimism, which biographies and official histories describe as central to how Reagan understood his presidency[5][7][10].
- By highlighting Reagan’s recovery from the assassination attempt and the spiritual language of “healing,” the article emphasizes that personal experience and vulnerability can deepen a leader’s commitment to public service, resonating with accounts that describe Reagan’s faith and resilience as important to his political identity[3][4][6].
- The column contends that voters are increasingly disillusioned because many candidates appear over-coached and scripted, with their authentic selves buried under layers of political messaging, a frustration mirrored in campaign analyses that note how carefully crafted “I’m running because…” statements often mask more complex or self-interested motives[8].
- The piece invokes the public reaction to Dolly Parton’s recent passing to illustrate how people respond strongly to visible, sustained efforts to help others with kindness and compassion, suggesting that voters crave evidence of such genuine motives in political leaders.
- Ultimately, the article argues that this single, simple question—why do you want to do this?—can help penetrate rehearsed talking points and give voters a clearer sense of whether a candidate’s ambitions are rooted in personal truth and a desire to serve rather than in pure self-advancement, a concern echoed in discussions of presidential character and purpose[9][10].
Different views on the topic
- In contrast, campaign strategists and consultants describe candidate motivations as a mix of altruism, ego, grievance, and opportunism, arguing that many people run for office to seek status, settle scores, or build careers rather than to fulfill a higher calling, and that these motives are often concealed behind polished public explanations[8].
- From this perspective, the standard “I’m running because…” message is typically crafted to appeal to voters and may bear little resemblance to the candidate’s actual reasons for seeking office, suggesting that a single question is unlikely to break through disciplined spin and professional messaging[8].
- The same campaign guidance notes that some aspirants choose races primarily because they are winnable or strategically useful—such as targeting lower-profile offices that can serve as stepping stones—implying that structural calculations, not soul-deep purpose, frequently drive decisions about whether and where to run[8].
- Additionally, analyses of Reagan’s own candidacy announcements stress that a presidential run is often framed around specific policy critiques and diagnoses of national problems, such as inflation, unemployment, government size, and foreign threats, underscoring a view that voters should focus on concrete agendas rather than the inner motivations behind them[1][2].
- Commentaries on presidential leadership further argue that the practical requirement of the office is not just knowing why one is there but clearly understanding what one intends to do, leading some observers to emphasize detailed plans, governing philosophy, and competence over personal narratives of calling or purpose[9].
- Finally, some political historians note that Reagan’s legacy is often defined by broad ideological goals—like limiting government and rekindling belief in the American spirit—rather than by introspective accounts of why the presidency felt personally necessary, reinforcing a view that public office is ultimately judged by tangible outcomes and policy direction more than by the sincerity of a candidate’s stated motivation[5][7][10].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
In this episode, we bring you the update on how an Altadena resident and her neighborhood are coming along, plus a re-run of the two-part series we did on the Poppyfields people back in June.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
