Let me begin by saying that this is not intended as an analysis of every political figure. Just as each one has distinctive physical features, so each has distinctive moral features. The question is this: Do the majority of our political figures model moral excellence or something less?
Governor Spitzer of New York state is much in the news as I write this. He is a man who once spoke out vehemently against moral degradation in his state and our nation. Before he became governor, Eliot Spitzer prosecuted many cases of moral ruin, including those that involved prostitution. Yet now we learn that Governor Eliot Spitzer, intense enforcer of moral values in society, was a participant in the very corruption against which he raged.
The media immediately began to revisit the moral values of President Bill Clinton, another political figure who failed as a character model. From there, the scrutiny shifted to his wife Hillary, potential candidate for the U.S. presidency, herself not a shining example of moral excellence. Other political figures also are being mentioned, each exposed for a lack of character. They protest, of course, that they are indeed men and women of character – have made a mistake in one small area – but are otherwise trustworthy models of character.
I beg to differ.
What is character? Does everyone have character in some measure? Is character something you grow into, or is it something that requires, consistent, conscientious effort?
According to the “how-to” book entitled Character (© 2003), it is neither automatic nor something that we all have in some measure. The husband/wife authors of that book define it this way in Chapter 2, page 14: “Character is a consciously developed inner firmness that permeates the fiber of a person, causing him or her to firmly harness the energy of objective high moral values to the actions of everyday life.”
Character is consciously developed inner firmness. When we look at political figures, do we see inner firmness that has been consciously developed? Sadly, we seldom do.
Character permeates the fiber of a person. Political figures cannot claim that they have character in “most” areas of life, but made a mistake in one small area. They cannot say they are men and women of character in most areas of life, but not in faithfulness and trustworthiness as regards commitment to spouses. Character permeates – pervades every part of – the life of a person.
Character causes a person to “harness the energy of objective high moral values to the actions of everyday life.” Our political men and women cannot claim that they have character when they base their lives on so-called moral values that they have sorted out for themselves. They cannot decide for themselves what is moral, immoral, and amoral. Those who have character base their lives on objective, absolute moral values. They make every action conform to the touchstone of those objective, absolute moral values.
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s story brings out many instances of a lack of character in political figures, but seldom do we hear of authentic character in those to whom we entrust our governments.
The reason, I believe, is that those who choose to go into the political arena frequently are those who care more intensely about personal glory and satisfaction than about moral excellence, i.e. authentic character.
Character counts in politics, just as it counts in every profession. Sadly, it is often lacking in political figures.
That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?