In my book What Would Our Founding Fathers Say?: How Today’s Leaders Have Lost Their Way, I talk about the importance of integrity that all politicians should have if they’re going to serve the public well. In writing the Constitution, the Founding Fathers believed that each citizen, politician and non-politician alike, be people of integrity. That simply means in order for a country to operate optimally and serve all the people as the Constitution intended them to be served, every leader is mandated to develop and follow his or her own moral compass, which includes following his or her heart and serving his and her family and others, in a responsible and compassionate way.

In order to serve the public well, politicians must show empathy, hence compassion, if they’re going to display political integrity in the way I just described.

Politicians display empathy by being able to see a little bit of themselves in every citizen they meet, or, in other words, be able to put themselves in the other person’s shoes. If they have empathy, they also have the ability to be compassionate, or understand what others feel and are experiencing.

Back in April, Republican Ohio Senator Rob Portman’s voted “NO” on expanding the bi-partisan gun background check legislation. He even declined to meet with one of the mothers of Springfield, Ohio, Jerri Jackson, who lost a son in the prime of his life, because of the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado. What she wanted to do was explain why she supported background checks. His office cited scheduling conflicts.

In order for our politicians and our fellow citizens to use their  integrity  in the best possible way, as our Founding Fathers urged all of us to do, is to periodically reflect on our lives, and through introspection, or reflection, empathy, and, compassion, begin to understand that it’s the relationships we have with each other that provide the happiness we all desire in life. It’s very difficult not to treat someone with love and respect if you’re able to see a little bit of yourself in that person.

Following that maxim, it would seem to be difficult for Senator Portman to not make time to meet with the mother who lost a son in the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado. I can assure you President Abraham Lincoln, who was the most compassionate president we ever had, would have met with the mother of the son who was murdered by the assassin, if it was humanly possible to do so.

In March of this year, Senator Portman demonstrated his willingness to vote contrary to his Republican party’s wishes when, in March of this year, he announced his support for same-sex marriages by saying he reversed his position on the divisive social issue after learning his son was gay. He certainly used empathy and compassion toward his son’s gay life style when he recanted his previous gay marriage position of opposing such marriages to one of accepting it.

Since Senator Portman showed compassion toward his son’s gay life style, why couldn’t he have done the same by at least making time to see the grief stricken woman whose son was murdered by the assassin in Aurora, Colorado?

I’m assuming he didn’t do any of the things a political statesman would do, which would be to cancel any one of his previous commitments and reschedule them, or find another time to meet with Mrs. Jackson. And if he couldn’t do any of those suggestions, personally express his deep regret of not being able to meet with her. Now that would be displaying political integrity at its finest.

Senator Portman’s obvious duplicity arose when he voted against the bi-partisan background check bill, and by doing so, decided to ignore the vast majority of his Ohio constituents on the issue of universal background checks for gun purchases (Quinnipiac University poll found that in Ohio, 90 percent of voters, including 86 percent of voters in households where there is a gun, favor background checks for all gun purchases.)

The question is why Senator Portman is willing to be duplicitous and not mirror the wishes of his constituents who want background checks for all gun owners? It’s because during the 2010 election cycle, Senator Portman has been the recipient of $600,000+ in contributions from the NRA, according to www.opensecrets.org & The Center for Responsive Politics.

Since Senator Portman serves as a representative of the people who voted to put him in office, and he swore to serve and protect the Constitution, which represents all the people’s interests, if he had used his empathy as he had done in accepting his son’s gay life style by supporting gay marriages, he wouldn’t have voted contrary to the will of the majority of his constituency who supported background checks for all gun purchases.

I’m sorry to say, but I’m afraid that Senator Portman simply represents the vast majority of politicians who have been elected to serve this great nation of ours, by representing their own selfish interests or the party that they represent, rather than all the American people they have been elected to serve and protect.