On Leadership from the Center: How Humphrey and McCain Anchored This Campaign’s Compass

Campaign Briefing: Representation

Perspectives

September 24, 2025

“The purpose of politics is not to punish the other side. It is to find a way forward that earns the respect — not just the vote — of people who disagree with you.”

We begin this campaign not from the edges of ideological warfare, but from a moral and civic center — a center rooted in two of the most formative public servants of the 20th and early 21st centuries: Senator Hubert H. Humphrey and Senator John S. McCain III.

They were men of principle, but not of pretense. They were fierce debaters and relentless advocates, but never cruel. They stood, not above the American people, but among them. This campaign owes its entire compass — its philosophy, its posture, and its purpose — to the lived examples of these two men.

Senator Hubert Humphrey: The Happy Warrior of Moral Progress

Senator Humphrey, known as the “Happy Warrior,” believed in America not as it was, but as it could be. He saw public office not as a reward for ambition, but as a vehicle for extending dignity to every corner of the nation. His legacy was forged in the crucible of civil rights, beginning with his thunderous 1948 Democratic National Convention speech demanding a platform that rejected Jim Crow and embraced equality.

“The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states’ rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.”

This wasn’t performance. This was Humphrey defying political orthodoxy — confronting a segregationist establishment and risking his own career in order to speak plainly about the humanity of others.

From Humphrey, the candidate learned that courage in politics doesn’t come from polling data. It comes from moral clarity. And clarity, if it is to mean anything, must survive confrontation.

Humphrey understood that civil rights were not a "black issue" or a "southern issue" — they were an American issue. His tireless work on Medicare, food security, education, mental health services, and environmental policy reflected a governing approach that didn’t pit compassion against competence, but united them. He was a policy realist and a moral idealist — and he showed this candidate that those two identities are not in conflict, but in concert.

He worked not just to pass laws, but to win hearts. He didn’t just legislate; he elevated. In following Humphrey’s work as a youth — watching not just what he said, but how he lived — this candidate found the first model of how one could speak truth, even unpopular truth, with joy, integrity, and an open heart.

Senator John McCain: The Maverick of Conscience and Constraint

If Humphrey shaped the candidate’s early vision of government as a tool of moral uplift, it was John McCain who later showed what it meant to govern with restraint, discipline, and humility. McCain’s legacy is often reduced to “straight talk,” but the real power of his example came not from candor alone — it came from control.

McCain taught this candidate that decency and honor are not footnotes to governing. They are prerequisites. His story — from POW to senator to bipartisan reformer — was never about perfection. It was about perseverance and principle in an era of expedience. He was no stranger to anger, but he refused to let anger govern him. He was ambitious, but never at the cost of his values.

“We are not enemies. We are Americans.” — McCain, in his final letter to the nation

McCain’s most formative lesson to this candidate was in loss. After losing the 2008 election, McCain stood tall and gave a speech of such grace and unity that even political adversaries wept. In a time of rising factionalism, McCain reminded the nation — and this campaign — that character in public service is not proven in victory, but in how one handles defeat.

His family embodied the America he served. The candidate often points to a now-famous family photo of the McCains: a Vietnamese-born daughter adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage; a Black son-in-law; family members of multiple faiths, ethnicities, and viewpoints. That wasn’t a campaign strategy. That was John McCain’s life — one of inclusion without fanfare.

He governed with fiscal discipline and a clear eye on national security, but his worldview was never limited to spreadsheets or defense appropriations. McCain believed in the nobility of self-government — and he lived as though every public servant was a temporary steward of the people's trust.

From him, the candidate learned that bipartisanship is not a weakness; it is the most disciplined form of leadership.

What This Campaign Takes from Both

This campaign is not built on grievance or applause lines. It is built on two lessons absorbed firsthand by watching these men in real time:

From Humphrey: Moral progress is the job of government. Not moral superiority. Not self-righteousness. Progress.

From McCain: Integrity means holding the line when it costs you. Especially then.

These men were not centrists in the diluted sense of compromise for compromise’s sake. They were centered — in principle, in temperament, and in purpose.

This candidate does not seek to model either of them as an idol, but to honor their example in action. This means presenting bold ideas with humility. It means recognizing when government needs to do more — and when it needs to pull back. It means refusing to speak in terms of enemies and allies when describing fellow Americans.

From Complaint to Constructive Proposal

Neither Humphrey nor McCain were known for complaining. They were known for offering specific, actionable, bipartisan policy solutions, even when those proposals were ridiculed or rejected. They fought for what they believed, but never against the people they disagreed with.

That is the ethic of this campaign: We do not rant. We build. We do not traffic in resentment. We traffic in resilience. Every critique will be paired with a concrete solution. Every hard truth will come with a harder promise: to serve everyone, not just those who agree.

“Unity is not created by erasing our differences. It is achieved by respecting them — and then working together anyway.”

Why the Center Is Not the Sideline

Let there be no mistake: Leading from the center is not passive. It is the hardest political act in a polarized age. It means taking hits from the left and the right — and choosing not to flinch.

This candidate’s campaign is not about reclaiming the mythical “middle ground” between extremes. It is about constructing a new shared foundation built from both sides' strengths:

From the left: the moral urgency of justice, inclusion, and care for the vulnerable.

From the right: the insistence on accountability, fiscal restraint, and respect for institutions.

This is not a campaign of consensus for consensus’s sake. It is a campaign for integrity-driven governance, modeled by two men who disagreed often — but who always showed up, always listened, and never forgot who they served.