I think we can all agree that Socrates was a wise man, so it makes sense that this quote seems to serve as a sign of the times we live in (politically speaking, of course).

However, since I am only 16, I have embedded with the oh-so-loved Generation Z and in my findings, I have learned that the younger generations seek out authenticity in their political candidates so much so that it is one of their highest priorities for an election.

While this would be an admirable quality in a politician, I think that it’s just not realistic to expect it.

Politicians, like every other professional, are auditioning for a job. The only difference is that the basis on which they get that job is measured on how well they can convince the American people to vote for them because of whatever they say. 

So, if that’s the case, isn’t it only natural to lie, to invent a persona when the stakes are so high?

Authenticity in an election should be a luxury, not an expectation. Now, how does this apply to our current election? Let’s take a look at the two candidates.

Former President Donald Trump and current vice president Kamala Harris squared off in the second debate mere weeks ago. While many quips and criticisms were exchanged, the debate provided insight into each campaign’s message. Trump, very easily rattled, spouted off his usual talking points while Harris, using certain tactics to provoke and insult Trump, shared her hope for the future.

Harris was deemed the winner of the debate, in part because of her positive message, but I am not so convinced. Here’s why: given everything that has happened since Trump was in office, there is an overwhelming sense of despair around the nation. With this being the case, isn’t aiming your campaign at a position of positivity and promising to fix everything the obvious choice to make? 

Both candidates have done this in their own ways; Trump’s campaign slogan remains “Make America Great Again” and Harris continues to focus on an undefined future. While both messages seem positive, are the candidates behind them truly on board with what they say, or is someone else pulling the strings?

With Trump, the natural thought is, ‘Of course he’s being himself, look at the kind of things he says,’ but again, I wouldn’t be so convinced. Though Trump has a reputation for saying what’s on his mind, he is still a businessman, and a very good one at that. When he approaches politics he operates just like a businessman, so to me, it seems natural that whomever can shill out the most cash or votes would be the people pulling the strings behind closed doors. For all we know, his entire persona may not even be real, but invented to appeal to far-right conservatives so that he would be set up to enter and remain in politics.

The same goes for Harris. “Momala” tries to convey an aura of warmth and protection, a maternal figure who will make everything better. Yet, for a long time, Harris was deemed as “fake” and “inauthentic.” Her odd laughs, facial expressions, meandering interviews and viral quotes have seemed inappropriate in the context of the moment to some voters, making the whole ‘mother-bit’ fall flat at times.

My point is not to tell you what should be important to you when you vote or that the candidates in front of you are entirely fake, but rather to say authenticity is not all it’s cracked up to be. Consider this: if America had a candidate who was truly being authentic, though we would never know this for sure, wouldn’t we have to embrace everything about them? The good and the bad? They are human after all.

I do not think we are ready for a truly authentic candidate when we can’t even accept this duality in the people we know and care for, and politicians know this. Authenticity is great if you get it, but for now, I think we are better off focusing on policy and hoping that leads us to make the right choice, whoever that may be.

Follow Nyah (@nyah_rama) and @CHSCampusNews on X.