Of course. That’s why they call it influence, isn’t it? The influence of prominent Unitarians is a benchmark of how we’re doing as a movement. It’s a window into what we’re up to now.

Which isn’t to say that we know how well we’re doing by how many famous people we produce. By that logic, the Scientologists have got everyone else beat.

Nor is it to say that whoever controls the White House wins. I don’t think we Unitarians were “winning” back when the Adamses were on top. If we were, then the Methodists are winning right now. (And winning still again if Hillary takes the prize in 2008.)

Dubya and Hillary both beings Methodist tells us something about the Methodists. The United Methodists have significant numbers of both Dubyas and Hillaries, a situation producing tons of tension (to put it mildly) the past couple of decades. It also tells us that the Methodists produce Presidents, for whatever that’s worth.

We, however, don’t produce Presidents. Our last candidate was Adlai Stevenson. Our last President was Howard Taft. The one before him was John Quincy Adams. Wowee zowee.

In our final list, we’ve got the inventor of the world wide web, the creator of the longest running animated TV series in history, an up-and-coming liberal TV commentator, a prominent existentialist satirist, and the father of modern folk music (assuming Seeger makes it into the list via the write-in campaign). It ain’t a shabby bunch.

What does our current slate of influential Unitarians tell us? About influence, and about Unitarianism?

Before I answer: One thing I notice is the absence of hippies. Vonnegut and Seeger seem to predate the hippies and transcend them, in the same way MLK and RFK do. But this may be a moot point, as I’m having trouble calling to mind any hippies who exercised real, lasting influence of any kind. (Sorry. I’m GenX.)

My snark aside, our list of uber-Unitarians belies the myth (within and without UUism) that we are a hippy denomination. There is precious little sticking it the man when it comes down to the wire, and when there is sticking it to the man, it’s overshadowed by substance and accomplishment. But perhaps that’s true of anyone with real influence, Unitarian or not.

What then is “real influence?” I’ve been asked that a lot over the last two weeks. It’s eas—on one end—to say that influence is bullshit and doesn’t matter and—on the other end—that everyone is influential in their own special, unique way. If either is true, we don’t need the word “influence.” Under either, influence is just a nice but useless sentiment we use to grease the wheel of human relations. Wowee zowee again.

I don’t want to say that, though I can’t define influence, I know it when I see it. But I’m at pains, two weeks into this train of thought, to be any more precise than that.

I have a hunch where we might find the answer though. It’s by asking why each of our candidates, individually, is considered influential. What is it about them that causes people to take notice? Why are folks justified when they take notice? And what does that tell us about where we are as a movement today?