By Selwyn Duke

It has become a stereotypical
pattern with men. A lad with a
salad-days libido has a girl in every port, plays fast and loose with feelings
and breaks hearts. Then he gets older,
marries, has a daughter, and becomes very protective. He doesn’t want her dating guys who are just
like he was.

What this tells us is that when it’s
our ox being gored, reality often becomes crystal clear. Sure, as a young man, dad no doubt
rationalized his behavior. But when the
object of ravishing eyes is his
daughter, he knows what having good character means, why it matters and wants
her beau to possess it.

Unfortunately, this pattern is
exhibited on a wider scale as well. When
Bill Clinton’s dalliances came to light, millions of people circled the wagons for
the selfish end of preserving the career of a man who did their political
bidding, despite the fact that many of them wouldn’t accept such scandalous
behavior in their own lives. “Character
doesn’t matter” became a mantra, and deviancy was further defined downwards.

The problem with this attitude is
that it increases the chances that America will choose the wrong suitor. And, like that proverbial father, when we’re
not blinded by a desire to justify our own misdeeds or those of someone whose
cause we’re championing, we know character matters. Isn’t it obvious? Would you want to be pulled over by a
policeman who had bad character? How
about giving your car to a mechanic with bad character? Would you place your child in the hands of a
daycare provider with bad character? If
not, why would you consider giving the reins of government – and especially the
nuclear button – to a politician with bad character (yes, I know that is almost
a redundancy)?

When we ask ourselves these
questions, it places the matter in perspective; it becomes clear that character
is central to anything one might do. If
the matter is a politician, what he espouses may sound good, but on what basis
can we assess the probability that he’ll keep his promises and strive to advance
our nation and not just himself?

Character.

This is why John Edwards’ affair
matters; it is why all politicians’ indiscretions do. As for Edwards, while he is now a private citizen,
he recently ran for president and presumably intended to do so again in the
future. And, in all cases, a
transgression is an important little picture that, when taken together with the
other pieces of the metaphorical jigsaw puzzle, reveals the big picture. Thus, I don’t say one sordid event
necessarily epitomizes a person’s life, but, nevertheless, it may be a crucial
piece, without which the big picture remains indecipherable.

Many people will defend the
character-doesn’t-matter position by self-assuredly saying that the only
relevant factor is that a person is competent. This is a nice fantasy; it’s a bit like saying it doesn’t matter if a
computer has corrupted files as long as the hardware is top-notch. An auto mechanic may have tremendous talent
in his field – great “raw material” – but it’s all for naught if you can’t
trust him to render honest diagnoses, only do necessary work, install new parts
when you pay for them, and ensure the job is well done. Ability isn’t the only prerequisite for
competence; conscientiousness and perseverance are two others. And what are they a function of?

Character.

Something else relevant to
competence is the percentage of the time your mind is engaged in productive
thought. It’s said the average man
thinks about sex every 20 seconds, and, while I think this statistic an
exaggeration, the fact is that the more time a mind spends engrossed in what it
shouldn’t, the less time it has to focus on what it should. As to this, Bill Clinton has admitted to
having a “sex addiction,” which leaves one to wonder how much time he had to
ponder policy. Oh, I know he showed up
for meetings, but the point is that when you’re obsessed with sex, drugs,
alcohol or some other untoward behavior, it doesn’t leave much time for deep
thought or the introspection that breeds moral and spiritual growth.

Some will still say that private
indiscretions are private matters, but to aspiring public officials different
rules apply. If you think this is
unjust, consider that if you want to work for certain media outlets, they
demand you sign a morality clause; this ensures you won’t bring disgrace upon
the organization and rob it of credibility. Similarly, politicians are applying for a job with us, the employers;
thus, we have a duty to not only make sure they possess that oft-unrecognized
prerequisite for competence but that they also don’t bring disgrace upon the
nation.

If some scoff at this, I submit
that their sense of shame is sorely lacking. There was a time when children often heard the admonition, “Don’t bring
shame upon the family.” But you only
have to surf YouTube, MySpace or some other juvenile den of iniquity to know
that the “Hey, hey, ho, ho, guilt and conscience have gotta go” movement has
been largely successful. No, we’re no
longer “repressed”; we’ve regressed – to a state of licentiousness reminiscent
of the ancient Roman ignobility. And
don’t mistake it for the freedom of having shed shackles; it’s the bondage of
having shed morality.

Of course, our libertine state is
the reason why some people are loath to hold scandalous politicians
accountable. Many times a decadent
public official is simply the man in the mirror, and it’s human nature to go
soft on transgressions of which we are also guilty. People will always be reluctant to uphold
standards that would condemn them, even if it means that wanting
statesmen will, consequently, continue to be visited upon the nation. This is why English poet William Cowper once
rhetorically asked, “When was public virtue to be found when private was not?”

This is a tough psychological
hurdle to overcome, but there is something I can say to such people. If you require the services of a pilot or
brain surgeon, you want an individual who is absolutely superior to you in that
area. And if you want to learn golf, do
you seek guidance from the worst duffer simply so you can feel better about
your own woods-and-water game?

The same standard must be applied
to politicians. Since public virtue is
necessary for good government, we should want
public officials who are superior to us in that regard. (Although, if we were somehow able to craft a
civilization where beauty at the top belied depravity at the bottom, we might
be the very first nation in history to do so.)

This desire to justify ourselves by
eliminating standards that would condemn us doesn’t dissipate upon taking an
oath of office, and this is another reason why character relates to
competence. Consider, for example, the
recent revelations
about 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals chief judge Alex
Kozinski. While this right honorable
jurist was presiding over an obscenity trial, it was discovered that he himself
had a pornographic website.  Kozinski
said he thought the site “was for his private storage and that he was not aware
the images could be seen by the public,” but isn’t it a good thing they didn’t
remain a “private matter”? Isn’t it
logical to assume he has rationalized his behavior and that this just might
influence his adjudication of the case? Connecting
the dots here isn’t difficult: Sound judgment is part of competence, and
descent into depravity can corrupt judgment. This is why the Bible speaks of “eyes blinded by sin.”

If it seems I’m saying that
character is defined solely by sexual propriety, think again. Shortly after the Edwards story broke, some
on the left pointed out that John McCain also was once unfaithful to an ailing
wife – sometime before electricity. And
in all fairness, voters have every right to consider this when assessing the
senator (although a complete assessment also allows that a man can change over
the course of decades). We need to be
completely fair, however.  Thus, when
comparing his character to that of Barack Obama, we also have to consider the
latter’s attendance in a bigoted, black-theology church; his many sordid
associations, which include an ex-Weatherman terrorist; his indifference to
infanticide (BAIPA
opposition); his criticism of America overseas; his refusal to visit
injured troops upon discovering there could be no campaign-advancing photo-op;
his advocacy of legalized theft (stealing money from oil companies to provide a
$1000 “energy rebate”); and many other things.

But
however you judge our public officials, character should be high up on the
list. Because if it now means less than
empty campaign slogans, it should be obvious what kind of government we deserve.

            Protected by Copyright