For being the mayor of the fourth-largest city in Indiana, Pete Buttigieg has been shockingly successful in carving out a national political profile. Buttigieg has only just formally announced that he is running for president, but already he is placing near the top of some polls, and being given cover stories in national magazines, touted as a “wonder boy” and the “Democrats’ heartland hope”. But for all the buzz, an important question still hangs over Buttigieg: what, exactly does he stand for?

Himself, mostly. The New York Times says Buttigieg puts “storytelling first, policy details later”. Media coverage of Buttigieg dwells on what his favorite socks are or his dogs’ personalities. Pete is all about Pete: Buttigieg is frequently evasive about his actual substantive agenda, preferring rhetoric about “freedom”, “democracy” and “security”. His campaign’s branding and graphic design have been hailed as “radical”. As for his actual policies … he’s working on them.

Buttigieg represents the apex of a kind of “politics of demographics”. Why is the mayor of a small city suddenly on the national political radar? It’s not as if Buttigieg’s tenure in office has been especially noteworthy – his signature policies were technocratic improvements like improving sewer technology along with some fairly middle-of-the road, even conservative, development initiatives. Buttigieg is not attracting attention for anything he has done, but for who he is. He’s a man who checks all the right boxes.

In fact, that’s even how he pitches himself. Asked what sets him apart as a candidate, Buttigieg says:

“You have a handful of candidates from the middle of the country, but very few of them are young. You have a handful of young candidates, but very few of them are executives. We have a handful of executives but none of them are veterans, and so it’s a question of: what alignment of attributes do you want to have?”

In every profile of Buttigieg, you’ll inevitably hear the following facts: he went to Harvard, he was a Rhodes Scholar, he served in Afghanistan, he became a mayor before he was 30, he’s gay and he speaks half a dozen languages. These, along with some impressively well-constructed stump speech rhetoric, are s Buttigieg’s sole claims to deserving the presidency. As he puts it, he has the right “alignment of attributes”.

But politics shouldn’t be about people’s attributes, it should be about their values and actions. Buttigieg is a man with a lot of “gold stars” on his résumé, but why should anybody actually trust him to be on their side? (Amusingly enough, in his campaign book Shortest Way Home, Buttigieg describes an incident in which a voter asked him how he could prove that he wasn’t just another self-serving politician. Buttigieg couldn’t come up with an answer.) The available evidence of his character is thin. Has he spent a lifetime sticking up for working people? No, he worked at McKinsey before he entered politics. Has he taken courageous moral stands? No: while Gary, Indiana, declared itself a sanctuary city in response to Donald Trump’s immigration policies, Buttigieg’s city of South Bend did not.

In fact, for progressives there are very concerning signs about Buttigieg. After Israel massacred Palestinian protesters, Buttigieg appeared to pin the blame on Palestinians. He has professed himself “troubled” by the clemency Barack Obama granted to Chelsea Manning, even though Manning is a national hero who was tortured after blowing the whistle on US government crimes. He has called for “democratic capitalism”, the same phrase used by Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council in the 80s as a euphemism for corporate-friendly neoliberalism. When his words aren’t vacuous, they’re troubling.

Buttigieg’s pitch embodies what Luke Savage has called the “West Wing view” of politics: the idea that the best candidates for high office are the “smart” ones who went to elite schools and have a wonkish command of the facts. Indeed, Buttigieg loves the West Wing and has already recorded a parody of it as a campaign ad along with a video featuring “Josh Lyman” himself, the actor Bradley Whitford. But the presidency of Barack Obama should have showed us the flaws in this view. It leaves out the importance of vision and moral courage. It lacks a clear understanding of what’s right, what’s wrong and what’s worth fighting for.

Buttigieg is clearly a skilled politician. He knows exactly the right words to say to his audience to get them on his side – it’s not surprising that a man who prides himself for being multilingual can slip into the dialect of progressivism or conservatism depending on which group he is trying to court. But he’s a classic “empty suit”, a package without contents. He stands for nothing except his own advancement. Let’s hope his time as the Democratic “flavor of the month” is rapidly coming to an end.