We're not even halfway through this year, and it's already a safe bet that this year will be primarily remembered for the effect that COVID19 will have had on our planet, in all areas: the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, biosphere, and also human society, in all of its facets. I shudder to think what in the world would have to happen for this pandemic to be the second or third thing people remember most prominently about this year when we look back on it. Which brings us to the fact that this is also a presidetial election year here in the United States Of America.
Back when the Democratic party still had too many candidates to host on one stage on a single night for debates, people were already picking their favorites to support. Like others, I had my favorites, mainly two that I was solidly behind. As discussion ensued over all the candidates, I distinctly remember being chastised for my reasons supporting those that I did. I said it was because of the general assessment I had of their characters, and not necessarily the positions on the issues they were taking. I was told that I was wrong for using a candidate's character as a metric for whether or not I support them.
Sometime later, I got into another discussion on Facebook regarding President Trump. It's no secret that I do not support him. In discussing with Trump supporters, though, I repeated my objections to Trump were based on his character, who he is as a person. I soon received a reply from a Trump supporter that my belief that character in a person is paramount was laughable. I was told I should care more about the economy and what the president has done for it, as reflected by the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the NASDAQ, rather than his character as a person.
I was hearing it from both Trump supporters and Trump opposers: it's wrong to support a candidate because of who they are as a person. Normally, if a person is hearing it from both sides of the aisle, there's probably good reason to pause and seriously reconsider. After all, a person can be of good character and still be a lousy leader. But when one flips it around and asks if a person of bad character can still be a terrific leader, I have to wince, making a face even as I type these words, and confess that I don't think so. It's no secret that a person of terrible character can be an effective leader, an efficient leader. But that doesn't inherently mean they're a good leader. History is full of examples of leaders who could get the job done, and maybe even respected a mite for such, but are nevertheless regarded as villains in the scope of human history. Just because a leader can get an agenda pushed forward doesn't mean they're a good leader.
So what makes a leader good? How are we even defining "goodness"? Those who know me know that my faith strongly directs me in this regard. For the sake of the readership who don't share my religious views, I shall attempt to make it as universally applicable as possible, but going forward, I'm not sure how successful I'll be in that regard. But just as C.S. Lewis started Mere Christianity with the underlying assessment that people will admit that they don't always behave the way they feel they should, I think that we can corrollate to that statement that there is within a society a general agreement upon what is good character and what is not. A general agreement, mind you. Not every person will agree upon every detail, but if your mentality is even one iota more flexible than "My party, good; them, bad," if you believe it's possible to assess a person's character without first knowing their political affiliation, then there will most likely emerge within a society a general consensus as to what is good character or poor, based on the social mores. We agree that killing people is bad, so much so that we codify that into law. To what extent we believe it is not always universal, capital punishment for example. But in general, killing is bad, as are stealing, assaulting, and so forth. It gets murkier when it comes to things that aren't specifically codified into law, though exploiting loopholes also tends to render a tally mark in the negative column. But overall, a sense of altruism for one's own societyand the fellow members thereof, a condemnation of prejudice, and the ability to improve one's self without exploitation of others will typically result in one being regarded as having "good character," and in a leader, that is what I look for.
That definition right there is a solid beginning place as to why I believe good character is paramount in a leader. Good character will generally seek the betterment of the greatest number of people while making every effort to not harm those in the minority. When our leaders our sworn into office, they take oaths that essentially affirm that to lead is to serve. It is perhaps a great detriment to our nation that we lost the vision that all government employees, including the highest tiers of management, are public servants. To lead is to serve the people, and a leader with character will strive to improve that section of the nation that is their purview, while taking care to not harm others. It is also worth noting that requiring some level of sacrifice does not always constitute "harm," though skilled sophists will often try to either conflate the two to prevent having to make any sacrifice, or separate the two too far to justify harm inflicted on others.
There is perhaps no greater test of a person's character than to bestow upon them the mantle of leadership. The old axiom states that power corrupts and absolute power, absolutely. This is also why character matters so much in those we elect. Power can change a person, but a person of character will usually be trustworthy with it. Now, not every person has the gift of leadership, but as stated earlier, someone who would be a terrible leader can still be a good person. In the case of the presidency, this is where a person's history of other positions held comes into play. Opponents of Mike Bloomberg never stop beating the drum of his "stop and frisk" policy until he finally withdrew from the 2020 race. Both parties wanted Eisenhower to run as their candidate in 1948, based on his leadership of the Allied forces during World War II. Critics of the Trump candidacy in 2016 pointed to his multiple declarations of bankruptcy as inability to run a business properly, which should have, in their opinions, signaled that he was unfit to lead a nation. So whether it's political, military, or economic leadership, a candidate's history of leadership is another important component to determine whether they should be president. Even then, examining how good of a leader they were then can also provide insight into their character, to see if having power did indeed corrupt them.
That's not to say I don't care about the issues when it comes to politics. If I believe both candidates to be generally good people, it will come down issues. However, I would also submit that a stance on an issue might also provide insight into a candidate's character. Do they support or oppose something, and why? Is it important to people who oppose capital punishment that a candidate oppose it because they believe execution is an abhorrent and draconian penalty, or is it enough for them to oppose capital punishment because it is more fiscally draining than lifetime incarceration without the possibility of parole? Why do they oppose net neutrality? Why do they support the right to die? Or is enough to know they simply do? Not for me. Character matters when it comes to issues, too because one can say they support or oppose a measure, but once elected and tested, when pressed on it, they could renege on it. Again, it will matter why. Bernie Sanders dropped out of the presidential race, saying he didn't want people risking infection of COVID19 by going to public polling places in states where voting by mail wasn't happening. Did a leader have to compromise, to table a pet project for something that proved to be more important? Did they have a change of heart? Did new data come to light? Heavy is the head that wears the crown, but a leader of character will seek to do what is ultimately best.
Most topically tied to my thesis here, sometimes the most pressing issue of a presidency will prove to be something that arises out of the blue. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 was a defining moment of George W. Bush's presidency. The response of President Bush to those attacks will most likely be that which he is most remembered for, whether viewed positively or negatively. In the case of President Trump, the response to the Coronavirus pandemic, and its effect on American society will almost certainly serve to be the defining moment of his presidency, especially if he loses his reelection bid. All of the things that supporters and critics alike believe about him as a leader and as a person will most likely be summarized in the handling of this emergency. His attempts to erect a massive wall along the southern border will be secondary. Sadly, the children in cages have already been forgotten in the wake of this pandemic. The debacle of his impeachment will be a footnote, partially because everyone agrees its conclusion was foregone. His choices of Supreme Court appointees will likely have longer-lingering effects, but won't be remembered as vividly. It's possible that this event in history will also obscure the whole narrative pushed by his critics that he is essentially a puppet of Vladimir Putin's. The current pandemic was something almost universally unforeseen, and the issues that matter most to us have almost gone completely by the wayside to focus on public health. But even Donald Trump does not wield power over the world of microbiology and cannot bid this virus cease. But the content of his character should have forewarned us that his handling of the situation would be disastrous and slipshod.
The TV show South Park has an episode that basically said every election we will ever have will be about choosing the better of two bad choices, the lesser of two evils. I don't know if that's entirely fair. I'm not expecting perfection. No one is perfect, and no one's character is without flaws. I've got my laundry list of flaws too. For example, these past two years in my life have revealed to me just how much I dearly need to work on developing patience in life and with people. That's just the tip of the iceberg for me, and I don't believe it's my place to assert if I'm a person of good character, either. I suspect the sentiment of "giant douche versus turd sandwich," as the aforementioned television episode deemed it, stems partially from the primary process where we inevitably weed out candidates that we may have much more strongly preferred, those with much better content of character. It may also come from the notion that politics is inherently a dirty business, and you can't be good and be good at it at the same time. All that said, I've been voting in every presidential election since 2000. For 2000, I didn't like Al Gore's character because he was too closely associated with the Bill Clinton presidency, and I REALLY didn't like Bill Clinton's character. I wasn't strongly swayed by George W. Bush's performance history as a governor, but at the time, I did feel he had a good character. In 2004, I was impressed with Kerry's character, and still thought well of Bush's, so it came down to issues for me there. 2008 was a year I thought we really got the best candidates from both parties, in terms of content of character. I liked both Obama and McCain on that front, but I was upset with Obama's removing his name from my state's primary ballot because the primary date was moved up. I wasn't thrilled with Romney's character in 2012, but I didn't have an intense dislike for him either (though some of my friends did). 2016 was the first presidential election in my adult life where I really felt we were given the worst of both parties. Those who've known me the longest can attest to this, especially my long-standing and intense distrust of Hillary Clinton. But I still voted for her, because I thought Trump's character was even worse. I still do, especially in the wake of COVID19. I felt Hillary Clinton simply wanted her plaque, her name encased in amber and etched in marble. I believed she only cared about being remembered as the first woman to be President of the United States Of America. That said, once elected, inaugurated, and officially achieving that title, I believed her presidency would have been most aptly described as "perfunctory," as opposed to the adjectives of "malevolent" and "opportunistic" that I hold for this current administration. I believe she would have handled this unforeseen tragedy much more efficiently and with greater integrity.
If we could have known ahead of time how long he would procrastinate before springing into action, how he would downplay its severity to the point of prevarication, how he would make unsubstantiated medical claims and then try to gaslight the American public on his semantics or his seriousness of those suggestions, how he would try to force medical professionals to lie and support his claims, etc., would we still have elected him? I worry about that. Paradoxically, I feel the greatest failure of the Hillary Clinton campaign, aside from taking swing states in the Rust Belt for granted, was that it focused entirely on ad hominem attacks upon Donald Trump, while offering little of substance on the issues that could have enervated more potential voters to actually show up at the polls. But more than that, her attacks on his character ultimately fell on deaf ears because there are far, far too many people whose political socialization has them wholly subscribed to the idea that a candidate's party affiliation defines their character. Too many cling to that simple, yet fallacious dichotomy that one party is one hundred percent pure, and the other is one hundred percent putrid. Our country will suffer as long as that dichotomy is deemed accurate. As Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney sang, "there is good and bad in everyone."
This pandemic should be a wake-up call for America. Political agendas don't matter when everyone is at risk. There is little profit to be gained from the death of an entire population; it's bad for business. There are things that cannot and should not be corraled by party affiliation. And lying about it will only make it worse. Disbelief will not stop infection: this isn't the Star Trek episode "Spectre Of A Gun." And apparently, in this case, neither does belief, as the Lord has seen fit not to spare those who as an interpretation and statement of their faith, defy medical advice and gubernatorial orders. We are coming up on a presidential election, folks. The impetus for this entry was spurred primarily by Joe Biden's status as the last candidate in the Democratic primary race. I am deeply troubled by his character too. With the exception of Mike Bloomberg, there was no candidate I wanted more vehemently to drop out of the race than Joe Biden, and now he's the only one that remains. I don't know if I'll actually be able to bring myself to vote for him. I know I won't be voting for Trump. Trump's abject lack of character radiates more powerfully with every press conference pertaining to this pandemic, spreading moral cancer throughout the actions of his party's members, and America as a whole. But Biden is only slightly better. I believe Tara Reade, and all the other victims who've spoken up about Biden's behavior. I said it on Facebook, but I'll say it again here: we now have a 100% chance of electing a corporately owned, socially regressive, sexual predator to the presidency this year. The year may be 2020, but our vision as a nation sure isn't.
Character matters. It is paramount in our candidates because those candidates may become leaders, and we need leaders with character. Once we are able to take to the streets again, we must do so and demand better of our politicians for our nation, for our future.
Character matters.
