A Sad Truth: Crooked Politicians Are No Joke!
“Without the civilizing force of universal moral standards, particularly honesty, trust, self-respect, integrity, and loyalty, the marketplace quickly degenerates. A society that has no values will not produce much value; a nation whose values are declining should be be surprised at a declining economy.”
In other words, amoral capitalism is not Christian and will be corrupted by a lack of moral guidance and commitment. Crony capitalism and crony socialism both lack integrity, and arguing which is better is pointless. Occupy Wall Street or the Tea Party Movements waste the energy of protestors against business or government or banks if widespread immorality, corruption, and law-breaking are common, not only among the leaders but also among the people. Neither more laws nor a fundamental change in our constitutional system is the answer; no remedy will correct the problems without honorable leaders and wise citizens to elect them. Blaming one component of the economy for economic failure ignores the real root problem, systemic moral failure.
"The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this: You cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal,' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians...It creates a hostile work environment."
Yeah, that one's good for a laugh (My apologies to the source, but I could not find one). I love a good joke as much as the next guy, and politicians and lawyers provide good material for lots of them. Yet, as with this one, much of the humor is painful. Why do we laugh about something as intolerable as lying, thieving leaders? Laughing at a Helen Keller joke reveals our discomfort at such difficult circumstances we fear but cannot change, however, we don't have to tolerate dishonest thieves in control of our government and our country's welfare. We can vote them out! So why don't we?
Here are a few possible answers: 1) Honesty, virtue, and trustworthiness aren't as important as other qualities we need in our leaders. 2) We accept their lack of morals because they merely reflect our own lack of morals. 3) No one but those lacking integrity are willing to serve. 4) Immoral and corrupt politicians are so deeply entrenched, that we are stuck with them (If you can think of other reasons, please let me know, and I will attempt to address them). So here's my analysis.
1) Do most people see honesty, virtue, and trustworthiness as less important that other qualities in our leaders?
Clearly some think that intelligence, education, and good ideas are most important. Obviously, a leader that is stupid, ignorant, and clueless would be a poor leader; yet if he was honest about his own deficiencies, he might still be preferable to a gifted crook. Since political campaigns hinge on the promises candidates make, their honesty and reliability are critically important; otherwise, the promises they make are meaningless. Without honesty, an intelligent leader will excel at fooling the voters; with no regard for keeping his promises, a well-educated leader may be trusted to use his knowledge and skills to serve his own interest, regardless of what he may have said. Lacking integrity, a candidate with good ideas has no incentive but his own future in politics to implement them. Add to the mix, the prevalence of party loyalty, and even when his moral deficiencies are exposed, his party will often remain solidly behind him.
Of course, exposing moral failure in one's opponent is part of the game, although it does not indicate a sincere interest in shared moral values. The lack of concern about integrity is evident in how often the the first attacks on a candidate are implications and accusations of stupidity. Even those claims aren't sincere; if they were, they would demand IQ tests and stellar grades as qualifications for public office, standards many could not themselves demonstrate.
2) I fear many of us do, indeed, accept their lack of morals because they reflect our own.
The net effect of lacking a moral standard is a lack of awareness or concern regarding immoral behavior. If I cheat on my wife, then how can I complain when my senator or governor does the same. We're just men doing what men do, right? I don't want anyone to steal my stuff, but leaders steal other people's stuff, just as I do, when I take home things from work that aren't mine or cheat on my taxes. And lying? Well everybody lies, especially politicians, although most of us don't want others to lie to us; but that's just life, right?
Actually, for most of our American history, moral virtue was considered both normal and necessary. While most understand that no one is perfect, a habit of immorality or corruption is both an affront to a decent person and a crime under the law. Vestiges of our Judeo-Christian legal heritage—perjury, stealing, and some sexual acts—are still strictly against the law, and should be. Civilization cannot exist without some controls over the behavior of people; moral values enshrined in law protect people from harm by others.
However, the departure of a virtuous standard of public service in the United States has only occurred in the last 50-100 years. Was the turning away from prayer in public schools the beginning? Actually, it was creeping in earlier by way of the rejection of God and absolute moral law, absolutes that were part of the very founding of the United States. Indeed, this experiment in government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” was understood to depend on a strong moral ethos. If the people and their leaders were not people of character—honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness—the founders believed that this effort would fail in a remarkably sort time.
"The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men... Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters... If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation... [N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt... "Since private and publick Vices, are in Reality, though not always apparently, so nearly connected, of how much Importance, how necessary is it, that the utmost Pains be taken by the Publick, to have the Principles of Virtue early inculcated on the Minds even of children, and the moral Sense kept alive, and that the wise institutions of our Ancestors for these great Purposes be encouraged by the Government. No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders... Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual—or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country... Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness."—Samuel Adams
According to Samual Adams, not only does the very success of our nation depend on the character of our leaders, but our people's character is so critical as to require we assure the teaching of character to our children. Sadly, such teaching has been largely removed from our government schools. Another founder, Noah Adams, warned, "In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate—look to his character." He not just referring only to Episcopalian or Baptist, he means Democrat or Republican, conservative, liberal, or libertarian, because it doesn't much matter their associations if you cannot trust them!
Here's George Washington, our first President, in his First Inaugural Address:
“[N]o Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other...[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted [early in life] are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous... The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world...”
Washington plainly says that character, moral virtue, is more important that education; I would say that intelligence and education are worthless without integrity for they otherwise merely create a smarter crook! Furthermore, Washington's prediction of the world's high regard of a government of honest people has proven true, for many of the people of the world want to be here. Their corrupt leaders, whom we often seek to appease, may despise us, as vile men often despise those of character, but who really cares what they think? We have have to deal with their power, but we must never bend to their evil.
3) Is it true that no one but those lacking integrity are willing to serve?
I suspect, to some extent, we have allowed it to become true. I know that many civic-minded, true public servants still exist, and some, with a deep concern for the future of the country, do run. What limits them is the cost. We've allowed perhaps the most important civic function in our nation to become a media circus. A largely passive electorate is manipulated by sound clips and talking points, clever ads and nasty attack pieces, and lots of money to engineer the voters. An uninvolved electorate accepts the shallow character assassination that passes as electioneering and an even shallower focus on the physical appearance of candidates. Imagine what a modern election would do to Abraham Lincoln!
Intelligent, thoughtful voters who demand integrity are far less susceptible to such techniques. We listen and read and form our own judgments. We prefer to consider what candidates have done before we take their promises seriously. We prefer reluctant public servants over career politicians; and, if there were more of us, we would have fewer career politicians to weed out and more public servants to choose from. Just listen to the scurrilous attacks on otherwise decent people, used to drive them out of a run for public office. Not only candidates and election committees but the news media create such a negative environment that only a person without a conscience who cares nothing for the opinion of others is willing to run. We've come to accept a system that encourages sociopaths to become our leaders!
4) Immoral and corrupt politicians are deeply entrenched, but we can remove them.
We must begin by rejecting a common perception summed up in, “Yes, I know he's a crook, but he's our crook.” Those who hide rather than confront urban gangs may be forgiving their fear, because the threat is real and close at hand. The attitude that people use to justify supporting a bad person who gives a token bribe back to his or her constituents is unforgivable. The irony is that corrupt politicians pay their constituents with bribes culled from the taxes they themselves pay, with a unhealthy portion dispersed into the belly of the voracious beast of ever-expanding government.
While I'm glad when corrupt Republican politicians who are exposed usually resign or get voted out. Of course, Democrats are more than willing to expose them, giving an edge to their candidates, but Democrats themselves seem more than willing to tolerate equally corrupt among their own. The attitude seems to imply that values are stupid so Democrats reject them except to use them against Republicans. Still, my point is that we must reject all who use their position primarily to gain wealth and power at the expense of the people and who lie both to gain and to protect their position. No war chest of donations can protect them if we the people demand integrity and vote accordingly; indeed, those very war chests will wither as people who demand integrity stop supporting those who lack it.
So what will we do?
One of my favorite thinkers Thomas Sowell writes
“In this age, when it is considered the height of sophistication to be 'non-judgmental,' one of the corollaries is that 'personal' failings have no relevance to the performance of official duties. What that amounts to, ultimately, is that character doesn't matter. In reality, character matters enormously, more so than most things that can be seen, measured or documented. Character is what we have to depend on when we entrust power over ourselves, our children, and our society to government officials. We cannot risk all that for the sake of the fashionable affectation of being more non-judgmental than thou.”
Here's a case where the culture of no absolutes has turned a Biblical idea on its head. “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” means do not judge others thinking to make yourself look better. Judging between individual candidates, whether for employment or public office, is something we must do to find the best. If I'm hiring a bank teller, I will reject one who is a thief. If I am choosing a representative of some kind, I will reject one who lies because I cannot trust him or her. If the candidate has been repeatedly unfaithful to his wife, I will likely reject him for the same reason, knowing that if his wife cannot trust him, then who can? On the other hand, broken relationships touch all of us, and we often don't understand our own break-ups or alienated friends, meaning character may or may not be an issue we can judge. For public service, public morals may be more easily discerned, justifying the need for a public record of service for higher office. I don't believe it's the voters job to intrude into a candidate's personal life, unless that life has become undeniably public or even criminal.
We need to begin to talk about character. I care little for what people think a candidate will do if that candidate is unreliable. Nothing is easier than for a politician to make an empty promise. What amazes me is the naivety with which people believe the blatant lies of politicians, thinking that their guy, in their party, of their ideology will not disappoint them. I wonder if it amuses such disreputable leaders to watch the people accept their carefully crafted hypocrisy?
Let me finish with this. Judging character and character assassination are virtual opposites. The former sincerely seeks to find honesty and integrity and stand with those who possess them; the latter uses lies and insinuations to make a decent person seem otherwise. Our task is not to destroy those whose beliefs differ from our own; our task is to find decent, honorable men and women to advance the values we cherish. As things stand right now, I fear our nation is slipping into the kind of corruption that is far too common in the world, and our only real alternative is to find people of sterling character who value our heritage of faith and freedom and who will become the great leaders of a bright future.
Comments