< PREVIOUS ] [ 1992 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
When the experts are not analyzing the Bubba Factor or
dismissing any Jerry Brown primary victories as deviations
from the sacred script which requires the anointed
front-runners to have their nominations nailed down by
April Fool's Day, they often mention the character
issue.
As nearly as I can tell, character issue
actually
means that George Bush is asking Aren't you worried
about Bill Clinton because he dodged the draft and had a
reputation for catting around?
That may be a fair question, but it is rather hypocritical when it comes from the Republican campaign. Bush certainly has nothing against Vietnam-era draft-dodgers; he picked one to serve as secretary of defense, and another to sit a heartbeat away. Bush has never been known to question the character of Ronald Reagan, who once complained that he was getting tired of waking up in bed with various women whose names he did not know.
One problem with the character issue
in
presidential politics is that a president can be personally
above reproach, and still produce wholesale corruption.
For instance, President Ulysses S. Grant was a man of unquestioned personal probity; never did he pocket so much as a crooked nickel. But during his administration, corruption flourished in every federal office from remote Indian agencies to the vice-president's chambers. In more recent times, Ronald Reagan was never for sale -- but many of his appointees were, and it will take generations to pay the bills. Personal financial integrity, one aspect of character, is no guarantee of an honest administration.
Other aspects of private character may be just as irrelevant to presidential fitness. Who betrays more people? The candidate who might have lied to his wife, or the president who says 'No new taxes' and then agrees to new taxes?
The main problem with judging a public leader by private character is that it leads to some peculiar conclusions.
Consider one prominent 20th-century leader, a decorated war veteran. He abhorred smoking and drank only in moderation. Never was he known as a womanizer. A vegetarian, he despised any cruelty to animals. He liked to take long walks outdoors, and he encouraged his countrymen to become more physically fit and in tune with nature.
By enlightened New Age standards, this man was a paragon. He got in touch with the mystic forces of the cosmos by consulting astrologers from time to time, and he often considered promoting the indigenous religious beliefs of his people to replace the alien religions that imperialistic invaders had implanted long ago.
That is the private character of Adolf Hitler. By contemporary standards of character, Hitler was positively angelic in comparison to Winston Churchill, a hard drinker and youthful opium user who was never without a cigar, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, with his mistresses and his jaunty cigarette holder.
The current concern with character -- that a person's vices or lack thereof are the paramount indication of that person's desirability as a political leader -- would tell us that Hitler was a better person than Roosevelt or Churchill.
If you want to believe that, then the character
issue
means something.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1992 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >