Character Matters Part V, Pluralism

            In the mid-seventeenth century the Dutch colonized what became New York. They chose Peter Stuyvesant as the governor of their colony. He’d governed the Dutch West Indies successfully. He was a brave man, losing a leg during a fracas with the Spanish or Portuguese. He took over the floundering New Amsterdam and set about making it function smoothly. He imposed his will through a variety of measures, including controlling the sale and consumption of alcohol, setting a speed limit on public roads, and closing the colony to Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and Atheists. His attempts to limit immigration to good Dutch Christians fell on deaf ears and the leadership of the Dutch West India company rebuffed his attempts, forcing him to accept anyone that came and was willing to live and work peaceably. Ever the good employee, Stuyvesant complied with his orders and the colony flourished. Eventually, when the British arrived, threatening to shell the colony unless they surrendered, Stuyvesant was unable to rally a common defense and the colony changed hands without a shot fired in anger. New Amsterdam became New York and Stuyvesant stumped off into history. But the stage was set for a pluralistic new world.

            Any leader in our nation must understand that long ago we embraced pluralism, a multi-cultural, multi-racial view of our nation. We’ve not always well complied with our stated goals; however, we continually strive to achieve this high standard. Pluralism demands that a candidate for any leadership position, any public position really, in our country must be able to set aside racial prejudice and evaluate individuals on their inherent merits. Leaders that evaluate others based on their skin pigmentation, ethnic origin, religious upbringing (or lack thereof), or sex fail to understand one of the most basic philosophical concepts of our nation. Leaders must clearly understand that they represent all Americans, not just the ones that they resemble. When leaders adhere to this idea, they strengthen our nation.

            Pluralism is one of the greatest strengths of our country. Racism, the polar opposite of pluralism, closes the door to talent and opportunity. When we view the “other” with suspicion, we limit ourselves and our nation. When we set aside our fear and accept those of differing backgrounds, we thrive. Pluralism enables us to grow and solve seemingly intractable problems. Those with differing backgrounds, differing experiences, and differing points of view often see solutions we miss because of our backgrounds. Closing the door on their full participation in our national and cultural life closes the door on richness and variety. When we limit others from full participation, economic, cultural, or political, we hobble the vision of those that founded our nation. For those of us that claim to follow Jesus, pluralism recognizes and embodies Galatians 3:28, “²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” English Standard Version. Pluralism recognizes the inherent worth of the individual and the value they bring to the larger community. Whether we draw our concept of a pluralistic society from scripture or other philosophical roots, an open society which welcomes all works best and our leaders must recognize and embrace this concept.

            Any candidate for leadership that seeks to divide, that uses race, sex, ethnic origin, or other like factor as a discriminator does not measure up to our standards for public office. By embracing discriminatory and racially divisive tactics, they reject what it means to be an American and what we expect from all our leaders. No amount of correctness on political or policy issues overcomes this peculiarly salient character flaw. Leaders must call us to unity, to coalesce as a people in order to address those things that challenge us. Candidates that employ tactics of fear do not deserve our support since they do not understand what it means to be a leader in our nation. Pluralism sits at the core of our national identity.

            Pluralism opens the door. Racism seeks to shut the door. Pluralism welcomes. Racism alienates. Pluralism sets a large table. Racism limits the seating. Pluralism strengthens and enables. Racism weakens and demeans. Candidates for public office in our land must understand these truths. They must willingly expand opportunities for all Americans for we will only succeed as a nation when everyone is welcome and free to fully participate in all areas of society and culture. Those candidates that are either unable or unwilling to embrace this concept do not deserve our consideration or support.

           

Interruptions

            One morning this summer, I had an unusual encounter. Each time we visit the family “cabin,” Christy and I put out hummingbird feeders. We enjoy watching the acrobatics of these living jewels. This year Rufous Hummingbirds drank at out feeders. Rufous Hummingbirds are quite aggressive and territorial. With their russet feathers gleaming, they take on all comers, defending “their” territory. During the day they put on quite the show. As the stars come out each night, we take in the feeders, as Racoons will knock them down and break them. In the morning, as I start my devotions, I hang them up again. In less than five minutes the hummingbirds show up for their repast.

While the hummingbirds break their fast, I spend a few minutes in private devotions. And yes, I enjoy coffee during this quiet time. I’m breaking my own fast. As an easily distracted person, I usually close my eyes when I pray, except when I’m reading off a prayer list. However, when vacationing in the mountains of Cloudcroft, New Mexico, I alter my practice. I want to take in as much of God’s splendid creation as possible. I join in the praise His creation offers as witness to His grand and beautiful design. I know this is not theologically supportable; but, I think God was on His A game when he created the mountains of New Mexico. At any rate, I always enjoy the quiet moments alone on the porch. Well, most of the time.

One morning, as I sat there, contemplating the grandeur of God’s creation, I was rudely interrupted. A Rufous hummingbird came and hovered in front of me. He hovered so closely that I could feel the downdraft of his wings on my legs. He hovered at right angles to me, keeping his eye level with mine. And then he hectored me! His angry twittering disrupted my thoughts. Startled, I realized this was not some splendid moment of communion between man and beast. No, this was a moment of direction. I had stupidly forgotten my first task, bring out the food. How dare I sit and sip my coffee while this bird and his fellow fliers went hungry. Shamefaced, I got up and returned with the feeders and hung them up. I was never bothered by a bird again. I did find the breeze of his wings rather splendid.

             

Character Matters Part IV, Faithfulness

            Sometime in February of 1981, a serious-sounding Officer told me to, “Raise your right hand and repeat after me, ‘I, Matthew E. Robinson, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I will obey the lawful orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so help me God.’” I’d like to say that I fully understood what I was saying, but that would not be correct. The first time I took the oath, it was just something that I did as part of joining the Army, one more step amid an ocean of paperwork required to become a soldier. I did not clearly think through the import of those words and how they would affect a change in my life. As the years passed and I spoke those words again, as one that took the oath and more frequently as one who administered the oath, I better understood their gravity. Deployments, sacrifice, long hours, and eventually combat operations would solidify the place of those in my heart and soul. I often think of them and how they helped shape how I think, what is important to me, and the man that I’ve become. Among the words is this phrase, “…I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”

            When we consider a candidate for high public office, we must weigh their ability to “bear true faith.” In Psalm 16, David discusses the character traits of a man that would enjoy fellowship with the Lord. He lays out what a righteous man looks like and in the second half of verse four we read these words, “…who swears to his own hurt and does not change;…” Who swears to his own hurt and does not change. When life is easy, my wife and family in good health, the road before me smooth, and there is plenty of coin in my purse it is easy to be faithful. But, let misfortune touch me or the road grow potholed and then you may more truly weigh my faithfulness. As a soldier, my faithfulness was not measured on payday, or when I was on leave. My faithfulness was measured during the tough times of lengthy field exercises, the long hours of preparation for inspections, and the hazards of operational deployment. Therefore, we look carefully at a candidate’s previous life. How they handle adversity opens a window into their soul, letting us observe the strength of their faithfulness.

            When the way grows rough, we see a person’s faithfulness. Will they live up to their wedding vows? Of course, the dissolution of a marriage does not disqualify; however, if a person cycles through marriages, discarding inconvenient spouses, we may reasonably question the strength of their faithfulness. Does a businessperson build strong businesses? Do they live up to their word? A man or woman that leaves behind them a wreckage of unfulfilled obligations and courtroom wrangling may very well have issues with faithfulness. That is why we give scrutinize an aspirant’s previous life. Their willingness to live up to their word, even during difficult times, indicates what they will do under pressure or during times of crisis.

            Will they fulfill national obligations that they find personally inconvenient? Will they honor a difficult treaty? Will they absorb a short-term personal loss for a long-term national gain? Will they support a policy that helps many at the expense of a well-connected few? These and other similar questions find their answers in a candidate’s faithfulness. Faithfulness in previous activities indicates a candidate’s ability to see tough things through. Faithfulness also tells us much about their trustworthiness, a critical component of international relations and negotiations. So, we must carefully weigh an aspirant’s faithfulness when considering them. A candidate that displays a lack of faithfulness in personal and professional relationships will not well serve the public in high office. Their predilection for abandoning nettlesome relations and responsibilities will lead to a chaotic discharge of their duties. Far from being a small issue, faithfulness, in public and private, looms large as a fitness indicator, an inability to hold true faith and allegiance should disqualify an individual from consideration.

           

Character Matters Part III Compassion

            Recently, Christy and I found a notice from the city in our mailbox. I’d let the tree in our backyard extend its branches into the alley where they struck the garbage truck on the cab each time they collected the trash. So, I hired a tree trimmer. They came with a very loud chipper and a multitude of chainsaws and other implements of destruction. When they arrived, Christy and I did not hear their knock. Undeterred, they set to work in our backyard with much clangor and sawdust. Our cat was outside, enjoying the morning. Well, she retreated under the shed and hid. Once Christy and I understood what was going on, she insisted that the work stop until she could coax Kimmy, the cat, out from underneath the shed. The men waited patiently while Christy plied her with treats. Eventually, she emerged, covered in spiderwebs and other debris and the tree whacking recommenced. Christy and Kimmy retreated to the house where they licked their psychic wounds. Christy felt Kimmy’s inner turmoil and fear. She was moved with compassion.

            Our modern word compassion comes to us from Latin through French. It is a compound word made up of com, with or together, and pati, to suffer. The idea of compassion is to somehow suffer with. We come alongside the afflicted and take on their pain. We understand. There is the notion of togetherness. Compassion does not see “the other.” Compassion sees a brother in need and responds accordingly. Compassion involves itself in the pain and anguish of mankind. Anyone that seeks the mantle of a leader must feel the hurts of others and be moved to action.

In Matthew 9:6 we read, “When he (Jesus) saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.” ESV. True leaders look out for the interests of the weakest in their organization. Those with wealth and power know well how to move the levers of society to ensure their own protection. They wield their influence in ways to preserve their status and wealth. Those on the margins, the “helpless” and weak, having no power or influence to wield, need someone to look out for them. When we evaluate a candidate for possible advancement to high office, we must consider their ability to show compassion.

            Will they use their office to protect the weak, the indigent, the halt, the oppressed, and those that exist on the margins? Or, will they use their authority to strengthen their own position, running over those in most desperate need of help. Leaders without compassion reshape their organizations and countries in their own image, creating brutish places devoid of compassion. Places which exert no check on the powerful, letting them run over the weak with impunity. In such a place, the worldview narrows, exalting the powerful and excluding the other. Compassionate leaders exert a brake on this all too human characteristic.

            We need leaders that willingly protect those without power and influence, calling on the rest of us to listen to our better impulses. Providing space and a voice to the minority requires sacrifice. We must allot resources and influence too those without, depriving ourselves of things within our grasp. Compassionate leaders help us see a bigger picture, one in which those formerly on the margins occupy a place of respect. Compassionate leaders understand the dynamics of power in this world. They know that left on our own, humans tend to crush the weak in the base drive to acquire. Leaders, moved by compassion, take steps to protect the weak. They also use the influence of their good office to educate and call us to action. They intuitively know that our strength as a nation comes from our compassion.

            Our leaders, the men and women we choose, represent us. They show the world what kind of people we are. When we choose leaders that display a deficit in compassion, we tell the world that we are not an empathetic people. We clearly announce that we embrace bullies. We value coarseness and raw displays of power. We declare that we consider raw power our strength and honor those who willingly subordinate others through its exercise.

            We often mistakenly measure or strength as a nation by our GDP or military forces. We look at things like trade balances when comparing our nation with others. Our true greatness flows from our compassionate treatment of those in need. When we take care of the needy, welcome the homeless, and set aside resources for the impoverished we find true greatness. We need leaders that willingly shoulder this burden, leading us to a better, greater future. We should reject those candidates lacking in compassion as unsuited for high office. Instead, we need leaders willing to sacrifice. Their fine example will lead us to embrace a more noble future, one in which all people find a welcome and open door.

Public Debate

            I teach debate. Hanging in my classroom is a poster that reads, “Think rationally. Articulate clearly. Engage kindly.” One of the primary skillsets we work on is the ability to engage in civil discourse. After all, I choose the debate topics hoping to arouse students’ passions. Sometimes, thankfully rarely, students let their passions overwhelm them and they fail to “engage kindly.” It’s understandable. After all, they are teenagers and given to extremes. But that is part of why I teach debate. I want my students to learn how to conduct themselves appropriately when taking part in a debate; whether it is organized or an impromptu discussion in the hallway. So, I find recent actions by leaders quite frustrating.

            It is one thing to disagree with someone. It’s acceptable to point out flaws in reasoning, logic, or facts; however, civil discourse does not include personal attack or character defamation. In truth, when anyone, self-included, descends into personal insult they erode the cogency of their argument. Personal attacks, no matter the height of the office, have no place in our national discourse on policy. Our form of government depends upon the clear and unfettered exchange of ideas through debate. We believe that good policy emerges from vigorous, yet civil, debate. We believe in this so strongly that we included the following ideas in the first amendment in the Bill of Rights; freedom of speech, press, assembly, and to seek redress of grievances. These rights, and others secure our ability to criticize and protest actions of our government.

            When governmental leaders respond to criticism of policy by encouraging holders of dissenting opinions to leave the country, they’re missing the point of our form of government. I grew up in the ’60s and ’70s, and remember the saying, “America, Love it or Leave it,” and thought we’d moved beyond that simplistic vision of our nation. It is not unpatriotic to want to improve our nation. While we do get many things correct and enjoy an enviable standard of living, we still have a variety of issues to work on. Labeling those that seek redress from the government as malcontents and encouraging their departure demeans our constitution and all those who’ve sacrificed to preserve its ideals. Such language coming from elected officials, sworn to protect the constitution, dismays me.

            I feel I must speak out against this erosion of our civil institutions. We must work to reinvigorate the ideas laid out in our foundational documents, holding leaders accountable for the things that they say. It is not useful to shrug and say, “They all do it.” They do not all do it and such a cavalier attitude toward such speech only emboldens those who employ such repugnant tactics. Should we continue to shirk our responsibilities in this arena we will pay a significant cultural price. A politician may espouse policy positions we deem important; but, if they engage in such reckless speech, we should withdraw our support unless they change. The damage their behavior does to the fabric of our nation outweighs any transient policy gains. Additionally, it makes my job as a teacher of debate much harder.

            The example of leaders carries great weight with my students. It is one thing for me to stand up and tell them something, but when they see respected national leaders employing such intellectually dishonest strategies, they discount what I say. They see a holder of high office engaging in such attack speech and assume that it must be acceptable. Sadly, our political history is replete with those who used speech as a weapon; yet, we aspire to a higher standard. Look at those leaders which have inspired our nation to greatness, and you will find men and women who focused on ideas rarely, if ever, savaging an opponent’s character. We must speak truth to power, demanding that they elevate public discourse. Not only do they shape policy, but they also help set the standard for enlightened debate in our nation. My support of a boorish, bullying, leader tells my students that I accept their behaviors as normal. This far outweighs any transient policy considerations. Of course, policy matters; but how we treat each other matters more. Calling on those that disagree with us to leave is the action of a despot and tyrant. Instead, leaders ought to engage in the messy work of figuring out what we can do to solve seemingly intractable problems. If we work together, without name-calling and innuendo, we will find the solutions to problems. That is the example I wish to hold up to my debate students. I want them to pick future leaders that handle public office and responsibility appropriately. Consequently, I cannot and will not lift up those who engage in sophomoric diatribe as worthy of emulation. Their words and their actions reveal their true nature and character and have no place in reasoned debate, civil discourse, or a civilized nation.

Character Matters, Part II Truth

            As a lieutenant, I was assigned to a remote communications facility on top of a German mountain deep in a forest far from other U.S. forces. Due to the remoteness of the location, I rarely saw my superiors; consequently, they did not know me well. In fact, if I and my soldiers did our jobs well, I rarely interacted with my superiors. During this time period, the Army went through a drastic reduction in force due to the end of the “Cold War.” Senior rater comments on evaluations meant the difference between promotion and retention. Even anemic comments might effectively close the door to further promotion and future service. These salient facts on the course of my future were never far from my waking thoughts. Two battalion commanders came and went with almost no interaction and the associated average evaluations. Finally, a new commander arrived who made it a priority to get out and see his entire battalion, including my remote station. Thankfully, he felt like I was excelling in difficult circumstances. At the appropriate time, he wrote a stellar evaluation, one that was sure to secure future promotion; however, he committed one of the few unrecoverable mistakes one can make in the Army. He was caught up in a series of lies and forced to retire. That glowing evaluation never went forward. In the eyes of the Army, how could a liar be trusted to properly evaluate anything, especially the fitness of a subordinate officer? He inability to tell the truth about a personal matter spilled over into the rest of his life, casting a long shadow which threatened to engulf me. Fortunately, my career survived, but that glaring empty spot in my record remained with me for years. Oddly, I kept my copy of his evaluation and would occasionally drag it out and read it for reassurance. Somewhere, in my dusty personal military files, it still sits. The lesson it taught me remains vivid in my mind. Truth matters.

            Some philosophers and more than a few prognosticators enjoy talking about an emerging “post-truth” age. They base this on a growing relativism, especially among a few prominent politicians. Spend enough time around the water cooler at work or at a local coffee shop and you will likely hear, “Well everything’s relative.” People trot out this phrase when faced with inconvenient truths about an opinion they hold. It sounds urbane, and in their mind, shuts the door on further discussion. While some things are relative, I like buttermilk biscuits better than ordinary, truth does matter, and we discard an instance on truthfulness at our own peril and that of our country and culture. And in this upcoming election cycle truth matters.

             When we evaluate seekers of high office and public trust, we must consider their ability to properly handle facts, especially the inconvenient ones. It is not difficult to handle the positive facts of my life. I like sharing them. It is those darker moments of failure that challenge, and the darker the moment, the greater the challenge. How a candidate handles those moments reveals their character. We all fail, and we all make poor choices. When faced with that moment of truth, do we rise to the challenge, or do we dissemble and fail to own our mistake. All public office makes heavy demands upon the holder. We trust them to make weighty decisions on our behalf. Billions of dollars change hands at their direction. Some decisions imperil lives, civilian as well as military. We must trust our leaders to be forthcoming when evaluating matters of national interest. How they handle the truth in the rough and tumble period of a campaign opens a window into their character.

            If, in the furnace of an impassioned campaign, a candidate resorts to telling lies about an opponent or spreading innuendo then we know that they are not reliable. It does not matter what they say in support of our policy preferences, they are not trustworthy.  We cannot trust them and how can we expect others that they deal with to trust them. How can we expect other world leaders and the leaders in other branches of government to trust them? Dissembling reveals much more than it hides. When a candidate dissembles regarding some past problem, we know that not only are they inconsistent, they are unrepentant. Truth is paramount in creating trust. And trust is paramount in the proper working of government and international relations. If we cannot trust a candidate to tell the truth, then we cannot trust them to do the right thing with the responsibility of high office.

           

           

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.