Pete Buttigieg
Pete Buttigieg is the author, narrator, and protagonist of this autobiography. He was elected Mayor of South Bend at age 29 and launched an unsuccessful bid for the Democratic nomination in 2020. Though he lost, he managed to do the unexpected: briefly becoming the front-runner in the polls. His high-profile run also firmly established as one of the leading voices of the next generation of Democrat leaders.
Mike Pence
Mike Pence was Vice President at the time that Buttigieg made his run for the nation’s top office. More to the point, however, Pence is also from Indiana and thus becomes a point of reference to which Buttigieg can offer himself as an alternative. He is particularly critical of Pence for his decision to seemingly sell out all the religious principles on which he based his political image in exchange for becoming Donald Trump’s running mate and eventual Vice President.
Donald Trump
The run for the Democratic nomination would, if successful, had pitted the Mayor of South Bend against Donald Trump in the election of 2020. The obvious parallels of divergence between the two who would have constituted the unlikeliest of election rivals is what constitutes much of the thematic material of the book. Throughout, the information and background on Buttigieg is situated so that, whether consciously or not, he is placed in comparison told Donald Trump. At every point along the way, Trump suffers as a result of the comparison.
John Rawls
John Rawls is an American philosopher most famous for his book A Theory of Justice. This book makes quite an impression Buttigieg and will go on to formulate his own theory toward political ideology. Rawls’ theory of justice essentially boils down at its most elemental level to one equating justice with fairness and equitable. That which is fair to all in equitable distribution is considered the most just of all possible applications. Buttigieg adopts the philosopher’s concept of making decisions from the “original position” of not knowing where one stands in relation to privilege or the lack thereof in making decision of policy. Without knowing whether your will position be one allow inequitable advantage or disadvantage, the only natural choice is adopt a policy that will be fair in equal proportion.
