When self-interest trumps decency

The character of political leaders, including the president matters.  It is central to a full vision of politics and is at the heart of the structure of the U.S. government...here’s my case.

#1-Politics used to have a much broader deeper meaning.  Today when we think of politics people usually associate it with bad actions and negative feelings.  As a political scientist, when I tell people what I do there is almost always an expression of pity, such as “oh, that must be tough these days”.  The idea is that politics is a messy business that is divisive and rough.  There are certainly elements of politics like this and it is difficult, from an ethical perspective, to be a politician in modern America.  But when you look at classical texts about politics you see a vision of politics that most people would not recognize.  Aristotle (the first “political scientist”) described politics as the pursuit of the common good of the city, which he viewed as the highest good.  The pursuit of this highest good was to create the conditions in which citizens could pursue virtue and happiness.  The pursuit of happiness and virtue would create a healthy society which in turn would result in fewer problems in society.  In his book on the history of Christianity and politics, C.C. Pecknold writes “Classical thinkers believed that the city was the common good, and politics was the ‘master art’ or ‘master science’ in search of this shared good.  Politics was a comprehensive philosophical, religious, and moral endeavor”.  Politics was not conceived as simply about power or self-interest or even achieving policy goals.  Politics was about the shared good and the creation of a healthy society.

#2-We expect leaders in other areas to have character.  I am generally not a fan of the field of “leadership studies” or “organizational leadership” but it is a booming field with a lot of content.  All you need is a cursory glance at the conclusions to see how important the field believes a leader’s character is.  This short list of “seven things that make a great boss” includes mostly character traits or virtues, such as honesty, humility, thoughtfulness and courage.  Whether you look at leadership studies related to business, non-profit organizations, schools, churches and pretty much any institution they have similar lists of virtues effective leaders practice.  We also know this intuitively and from our own experiences.  We’ve all worked or been in institutions with good leaders and with bad leaders.  If we reflect on what the difference was between them it’s likely not about production or output and most likely about the difference in virtues practiced. If we expect other leaders to have good character why would we not expect the same from political leaders, let alone the president?

#3-The U.S. Constitution creates a system based on a President of good character.  John Adams famously wrote “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  Within the context of the letter this quote comes from it becomes apparent he is talking about people with virtuous practices, as opposed to “iniquity and extravagance”.  I’m sure you’ve seen the following quote as well.  Alexander Hamilton, writing on the type of president that would threaten America, said “When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanour—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind’.”  The danger he lists are all related to character flaws, such as inability to control temper or unprincipled in his own life.  I am not a historian nor a political theorist.  But I am someone who studies structures of governments and why governments are structured the way they are.  If you look at the structure of the U.S. government it becomes clear that the president, and leaders in general, are assumed to have good character and, if not, they can be removed.  The best example of this is the power of the President to pardon, which is almost absolute as it relates to the federal legal system.  I believe I’m correct in saying that the president could pardon everyone in a federal jail under the powers given in the Constitution.  The remedy for this would be the removal of the president through impeachment or the 25th amendment.  But giving a leader this much power assumes a leader of virtue that has the principles not to abuse it and the ability to remove a leader without these principles is a recognition of the dangers such a person would pose.  There are other examples throughout the structure of the government but it is clear that the view of politics possessed by the people who structured the U.S. government was much more comprehensive than the narrow view many hold today.

#4-Trump has always lacked the character to be president.  In reading the quote from Hamilton above, you can see Trump’s character flaws in almost all of the worries that Hamilton posed.  Someone who is unprincipled in private life, someone whose temper leads to escalation in situations and does not bring calm, someone who sees value in those around him only in how loyal they are to him and someone who brings suspicion to the government (CIA, FBI, DOJ, elections, etc.) to be flattered and supported by the zealots of our day.  It was not just Hamilton who worried about such a man.  Almost every Republican who ran against Trump in 2016 warned that a Trump presidency would lead to violence.  Most prescient was Rick Perry, who later became Trump’s Energy Secretary, who compared Trump with the Know-Nothing movement of the 1800s.  Recalling the movement’s 1854 riot in DC intended to stop a conspiracy theory that suggested the Pope would take over the government.  Perry said, “These people built nothing, created nothing. They existed to cast blame and tear down certain institutions. To give outlet to anger.  Donald Trump is the modern-day incarnation of the Know-Nothing movement.”  In addition to Perry, Cruz, Rubio and others warned how dangerous Trump was, only to ignore the danger created by Trump’s personality for political gain. Trump is even found lacking when compared with the president who is synonymous with unethical behavior, Richard Nixon. Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960 in a much closer election that had more plausible (but still not likely) allegations of voter fraud. However, Nixon conceded suggesting that pursuing recounts would be devastating to the nation. In his address after deciding to resign because of imminent impeachment related to Watergate, Nixon said he has never been a quitter but he “must put the interest of America first”. It is almost unimaginable that Trump would or even could say such a thing.

Based on the evidence it seems fairly obvious that character is important in leaders; especially a president.  When I speak of character I primarily have in mind basic decency:  thinking of others before yourself, acting in the interest of the common good instead of simply seeking self-interest, being able to control passions, thoughtfulness, empathy and honesty.  These are not necessarily religious values or unreasonable standards.  It is not a call for perfection, only a call that we should hold leaders to some minimum standard of character.  The same is true for all political leaders.  Senators Hawley and Cruz, among others, clearly displayed that they placed what they perceived as their own political gain ahead of the good of the country.  The result of their self-interest and Trump’s self-interest in doing anything to hold power was the deadly insurrection that occurred Wednesday in the U.S. Capitol.

Campaign Ads

Here’s a positive ad from Reagan’s 1984 campaign.  It always reminds me of a Folgers’ commercial for some reason.