Two criteria come to mind: Their Associations and their Integrity. With regard to the first, some similtudes come to mind. “Birds of a feather, flock together.” and “A man is known by the company he keeps.”   Does the juvenile delinquent join the school’s Bible club for friendships? Does the valle dictorian go to the school dropout for advice and counsel? 

For those who attempted to act on Dr. King’s Dream - that we evaluate every man based upon his character - there were warning signs before November 4, 2008 that pointed to the character of our new President. The Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wrights, Saul Aulinkskys and  Van Jonses in his life had several things in common. 1) They had a disdain for the America that has stood as a beacon of hope to the world for 250 years that people can, in fact, live together in freedom – regardless of beliefs, and economic and ethnic backgrounds.   2) They believed in and advocated a system of government contrary to the US Constitution, which form of government has successfully withstood the test of time. 3) They had associations and dealings with many individuals and orgaizations known for their unethical and at times illegal activities.

Regarding Integrity, this trait can be observed in those who speak and do in public the same as they speak and do in private. In other words, there is no (or scarce) hypocrisy about them. Their “word is gold” as the saying goes. So when a candidate or President tells us that he will establish a transparent Administration and era in Congress, one does not expect to hear him refuse Congressional questioning of his closest advisors (known as czars) to determine if their proposed policies and advice are consistent with our Constitution. Or when Senators of the majority party are literally changing the locks on committee rooms to keep members of the Minority party out of discussions. These kinds of actions are the antithesis of transparnecy.

When a person (candidate or President or citizen) proclaims that they will usher in an end to partisan wrangling and establish an atmosphere where all ideas will be welcome to the table, what can we determine about the integrity of those claims when any and all who would oppose proposed policies are vilifyied, maligned, slandered and targeted for economic and character assissination in the public square? When citizens are asked to snitch on any of their fellow countrymen who might hold sincerely held views that differ from the President or his representatives, does this foster an atmosphere “where all ideas are welcome to the table?” 

I personally know hundreds of African-Americans who would have never voted for the man currently in the White House, had his skin color been white….and rightly so. But they laid aside their long-held beliefs to vote in the “first black American President.” We let Dr. King, Jr. and the Dream down by looking to the color of a man’s skin instead of his character, and set him in the highest office of the world’s greatest free nation. We ignored Dr. King, Jr.’s real Dream…which was that all men, black or white, would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. An even sadder anctidote is that all future black Americans who may aspire to the Presidency will be judged against the standard of character set by the first African-American President. And although unfair as it is (I’ve been priveleged to hear and read the thoughts of many black Americans on public policy that stand 180 degrees from current poposed policies), it is human nature to do so.