Character Matters

            As the 2020 Presidential campaign spins up with increasing fervor, and perhaps acrimony, I thought I’d spend some time considering once again what makes for a good candidate for high office. As an independent voter, I try to consider all my alternatives. I do not espouse membership in any particular party. I do not wish to carry their baggage. If I join a party, then, in some fashion, I must support the platform. Every party expresses certain beliefs that trouble me, some minor, others major; consequently, I try to examine each aspirant to public office based on two things, their personal character and do they support most of the things that I consider important for the development of our country and society. So why should I evaluate character and why is it important?

            In our current cultural milieu, we tend to avoid character evaluation, misusing such passages as, “…Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her,” John 8:7, or “Judge not, and you will not be judged;…,” Luke 6:37a. These verses fit well our penchant for excusing our own misdeeds; but, taken in context they do not prohibit the evaluation of someone’s character. In fact, elsewhere in the Bible, particularly in I Timothy 3, we find instructions on how to evaluate a person for leadership within the context of the body of Christ. When considering a person for representative or high office, one ought to consider character traits. Has the applicant displayed the traits needed for great responsibility? We avoid quoting this particularly germane scripture, “For to everyone who has will more be given,…,” Matthew 25:29a. Here, Jesus reminds us that increase in responsibility ought to be proceeded by some evidence of good stewardship. Have they displayed the character traits that establish their trustworthiness for increased responsibility? So, when we examine a candidate, we not only evaluate their spoken and written policy pronouncements, we need to consider the tenor of their life.

            We’re not looking for perfection, otherwise none need apply. The last person that achieved perfection is otherwise occupied and not running for office. When examining a candidate for fitness, we should carefully consider how they’ve handled previous levels of responsibility. Did they faithfully discharge their duties, or did they shirk odious or difficult tasks? We need to examine their long-term relationships, and yes this includes familial as well as business relations. When granting high-level security clearances, the military considers extra-marital affairs as a negative factor, not out of puritanical devotion to the institute of marriage, but extra-marital affairs indicate a level of willingness to remain true to an oath. Divorce need not disqualify; however, moving from one relationship to another with various peccadilloes in between, indicates a certain character flaw. Therefore, obtaining a high-level clearance is an arduous lengthy task. The military seeks to discover any moral turpitude prior to granting access to sensitive information. And character provides a window, a preview as it were, into how a person will handle unforeseen situations and challenges.

            A person’s character reveals their modus operandi, their preferred way of doing things, their habits. And this, perhaps even more than their stated goals, reveals how faithfully they will discharge their duties. In the realm of responsibility, the how matters as much as the what, in some situations perhaps even more. Despite cultural myth to the opposite, most officeholders seek to make good on their promises. But there are always unforeseen situations and problems. Character and previous performance provide an indication of how a person will handle challenges. Additionally, a leader’s character influences the behaviors and character of the organization they lead.

            The military espouses this truism, “An organization adopts the personality of its leader.” And it’s true. An organization quickly assimilates the character traits of its leader. If a leader is of high moral fiber, the organization moves in that direction. If the leader is of low character, willing to dissemble and compromise morally, soon the organization behaves in a like fashion. The leader sets the standard. In this arena, character outweighs any policy pronouncements or campaign speeches. When we select a leader, we must consider their character as evidenced by prior behaviors. The organization they lead, in this case, our national government, will assume the norms of the leader. If a candidate behaves in ways we find reprehensible, soon the government will behave similarly. So if we care about the character of our government, we must care about those we appoint as its leaders. We will not find perfect individuals, but good individuals, men and women of strong moral fiber.

            We must avoid the temptation to wave away criticism of a candidate’s character with the bromide of, “Well they all do it.” Yes, we are all failed individuals. If you turn over enough stones in my past, you will find ugliness, instances of extreme failure. But we can judge a person’s worth for public office by their character. If their past indicates moral looseness, an inability or unwillingness to live a life governed by moral standards, then they do not deserve our support, no matter their professed political positions. Their previous actions foretell failure when in the crucible of unforeseen crisis. Character matters. And we must discipline ourselves to carefully examine those that seek public office, judging their fitness, not on party affiliation or professed policy but on their previous behaviors.