Why Character Matters

Morals, or "values" as they have come to be known, has become a touchy subject when it comes to elections. When morality comes up, many, politicians especially, take umbrage.Sometimes it is in the open such as when one candidate accuses another of lying or ducking his obligations. Other times it is hinted at when one politician challenges another to come clean or an innuendo is made. Frequently, when the issue is brought up the person or group bringing it up is criticized for seeking to divert the race from substantive issues either through desperation or lack of substance.  This is frequently true, but not always. Whatever else they are, "values", and the willingness to adhere to them, are the measure of a man. Betrayal, defects in honesty and unwillingness to live up to one's obligations are moral defects. A man who cheats on his wife is disloyal. A woman who makes a claim she knows to be spurious or untrue is a liar. A person who fails to live up to his promises is unreliable. A person who puts personal gain over public obligation is untrustworthy. Such traits might not matter very much in your neighbor but they do matter in your president. 

Yes character matters. It matters very much. Character is about more than isolated acts, whether they be praiseworthy or contemptible. It is the measure of the entire man. It is not about particular decisions. It is about how decisions are arrived at. Being president is about making decisions. It is important what factors are considered and how they are weighed in a person's decision making. Politicians who arrive at decisions based on ambition or personal calculations should not be relied upon. They are not acting in the best interests of their constituents but out of expediency and hope of gain.

Character is not tangential to decision making. It is essential. Politics is about making decisions. Making decisions is a personal act. What a man thinks and does in private reflects his true character. When a politician seeks to hide his real character behind a public mask he is a dangerous man because he will go to great lengths to hide that character. He will lie, he will betray, he will coerce, he will bribe to keep his true nature from the public eye. The more ambitious the politician, the greater the lengths he will go to to keep his moral failures hidden and consequently the more distorted his decision making will become.

You can say that politics is less about morality than it is about virtue and you would be correct. Virtue is not about a man's inclinations and tendencies but how he meets his obligations and conducts himself regarding others. But virtue is a difficult thing to achieve in the absence of morality. It will rarely be achieved and hard to maintain for it requires great diligence, greater than most men are capable of. Moreover, it will be constantly under siege. It will always be one temptation, one opportunity, one weak moment away from buckling.

A gap between a politician's private behavior and his public persona make that politician vulnerable. Should that gap be discovered, many politicians (and nearly all public figures for that matter), will expend a great deal of energy to ensure it is not made public. What politician wants to be brought down by a dalliance with an employee or an illegitimate deal? A distinction can, and should be made between a lapse in judgement and a pattern of behavior. A one time tryst is a different thing than a series of trysts or an affair. A single special deal to help an important constituent is different than a pattern of granting favor for gain. A single lapse can be excused because all men are imperfect. All men at one time or another make a bad decision or act out of weakness or self interest. It is the pattern of a man's behavior that reveals his nature, not an isolated act. It is the pattern of a man's decisions that reveal his character. Patterns are only revealed over time. To single out one bad act or one moral lapse and use it to tar a man's career is unfair. To ignore a pattern of questionable judgment and morale lapses is reckless.

You cannot know how a person will conduct himself the future. The best you can do is know how he has conducted himself in the past . To know that you have to know a person's history. You can trust an honest man to continue to act honestly. You can trust a brave man to continue to act courageously. You can trust a faithful man to continue to act faithfully. You can rely on a man who has lived his life selfishly to continue being selfish. You can never be sure how a man lacking character will act. For him, everything relies on circumstance and calculation.

Ultimately, what a person says or does in public matters less than what he says and does in private because in private he reveals his true self. Yes it matters if a politician had an affair. If a man will betray his wife chances are he will betray the public, if only to keep it secret. Yes it matters what maneuvers and special deals a politician made to achieve office for it can reveal an overpowering ambition that will continue to entice dishonesty in order to keep that office or achieve greater office. No one knows the future. No one knows what challenges will emerge. No one knows what decisions a politician will make in the face of those challenges. You can know what sort of person will make those decisions. If you want to know what sort of person a politician is you have to look at how he lives up to his obligations and observes his word. In order to know that you have to know what he has said and what he has done over time.

You can, indeed you should, overlook the small things. There is a difference between getting a friend who is down on his luck a job and rewarding favored constituents with lucrative contracts. If a candidate says he is happy to be in Cleveland chances are he is just being polite. That is politics. By the same token, a single poor decision or dishonest action in a politician's past should be considered in context of time and place. But the large things: was he faithful to his wife? Did he take advantage of his position for personal gain? Did he step on others in his ambition? Those things matter, even more so if there is a pattern. Men do not shed their character once they achieve office. They might become prudent. They might exercise restraint. But they will not change. Because of that you have to pay attention to their character. A man with suspect character should be scrutinized, especially if that man would be president. You cannot know the future. The best you can do is know the man.

The failure to live up to one's "values" is human. Who among us has not failed at times to live up to his own standards? But there is a difference between falling short of one's "values" and abandoning them (or never holding them in the first place). To profess or champion "values" not sincerely held is dishonest. The willingness to abandon one's "values" when they become inconvenient indicates a weakness of character or an ambition that knows no limits. How can we know what sort of president a man would make if we don't know the man? How can we know the man if we don't know his character? How can we know a man's character if we don't know what is important to him? How can we know what is important to him if we don't look at what he has done?

Does it matter if a man who would be president is selfish? Does it matter if he is lazy? Does it matter if he is prone to yield to desire? Of course it does. No one can say otherwise. But how can you know such things unless you examine the man? Character is the sum of a man's actions over time. A man can claim any value he pleases (he cannot, however, claim to be loyal to his values since loyalty is itself a "value" and one value cannot support another), but his nature will be revealed by his actions over time. If a man has succumb to desire ten times you can be confident he will succumb again. If he has shirked his responsibility to his family, why wouldn't he shirk his responsibility to the public?