CHARACTER — THAT’S THE WRONG ISSUE!

By Edwin Cooney

You’re not going to be very comfortable with what I’m about to declare.  I’m sure of that, because I’m not either!  Here’s the truth.  Historically, character has little or nothing to do with the person that Americans elect as their president.  To assert otherwise is a distortion of American history!

American voters, generally, are most comfortable when they like what a political party stands for, as well as when their perception of the candidate’s character pleases, entertains, or even inspires them.  Character is of only marginal importance to us.  As for 2016, I plan to vote for Bernie Sanders on primary day here in New York State.  However, because political philosophy plays a major role in determining the future of the country, I generally give primary preference to political philosophy.  Thus, although I have some concerns about Hillary Clinton’s personal and political tendencies, I expect to give her my vote in November.  The question is, how does one measure the morality of presidential candidates?  I suggest we never have and never will accurately gauge the morality of potential presidents or any other public office holder, for that matter.  It’s hardly a matter of conservatism or liberalism.  There are “saints” and “sinners” all over the political spectrum and points in between. 

Consider these factual historical realities:

Christian America elected Thomas Jefferson, a Deist not a Christian, president in 1800 over John Adams, a Unitarian. Protestant clergy and Federalist leaders warned voters that if elected, Jefferson would confiscate all Bibles.

If character is the most important or even a vitally important historical factor in our presidential elections, how could Americans in 1828 have elected General Andrew Jackson, an almost merciless killer of Indians? Jackson was always ready to hang military deserters and to duel with those who hurt his personal pride. President John Quincy Adams’ Christianity mattered little against General Jackson’s capacity to administer violent death to almost anyone who dared to cross him!

Abraham Lincoln won the presidency in 1860, but the other three candidates, Vice President John C. Breckinridge, John Bell and Stephen A. Douglas, all looked the other way when it came to the question of the morality of human slavery.  Mr. Lincoln received only about 39% of the national vote on Tuesday, November 6th, 1860.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t publicly advertise what he admitted privately, that his left hand never knew what his right hand was doing. However, a lot of important and influential people knew such was the case.  Was FDR’s substantial morality to be found in the number of people whose homes, jobs and well-being were preserved from the ravages of the Great Depression or was his capacity for political manipulation and obfuscation an essential force behind his success as a national leader?

President Richard Nixon is known to have been quite proud of his unpredictability in foreign affairs.  If the leaders of North Vietnam believed he was unstable as opposed to being a man of principle and peace, that was to his advantage.  Mr. Nixon, whom we twice elected to presidential glory, practiced practicality more than he practiced principles.  Ironically, many of those who today express contempt for Hillary and Bill Clinton insist that Nixon never should have been forced to resign his office in disgrace.

Finally, back in 1980, I would guess that most people would have rightfully rated President Jimmy Carter’s moral credentials equal (if not greater) to those of Ronald Reagan, but they needed lower interest rates, less inflation and lower taxes in order to improve their living standards.  By comparison, morality never stood much of a chance.  Hence, Jimmy went back to his hometown and to his church to establish a new Carter Center for peace and to build homes for the poor as a member of Habitat for Humanity.

Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton appear to be ready to appeal for our votes by demonstrating that the other is possessed by the “…devils of our nature.”  We’re foolish if we fall for it. To paraphrase the late GOP Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, “…all of us must, on occasion, rise above principle.”

Knowledge and prioritization of the challenges we face at home and abroad are what ultimately matter to our present and future prosperity, safety and peace.

Recently, a fascinating article was written in Current Affairs magazine that insists that only Senator Sanders can defeat Donald Trump.  The author’s theme is primarily based on a set of assumptions.

Hang on tight!  I’ll write about those assumptions next week.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY