WHOSE CHARACTER COUNTS?

By Edwin Cooney

Whose character counts is a question older than the Constitution of the United States, older than the Protestant Reformation and the Period of Enlightenment that followed it, older even than Magna Carta. In fact, the question is as old as humankind!

What was fascinating to me the other night in South Carolina during the GOP debate was how easily Newt Gingrich was able to redirect the issue of his personal character in front of that highly partisan audience -- and how easily that audience (including Newt’s highly moral fellow presidential candidates) bought into his redirection.

Speaker Gingrich’s redirection came in the form of his pompous outrage against the media for daring to even bring up what his former wife volunteered about his 1999 proposal that they have an “open marriage.” Before denying it, he preceded to blame the “elite media” for allowing his former wife’s story to be aired. He characterized the media not only for its elite stature, but even more, for a strategy of "…protecting Barack Obama by criticizing Republicans.”

As far back as 1980, Conservatives have told us that one of the major differences between conservatism and liberalism is conservative morality.

We were assured that President Reagan, unlike President Carter (as religious as Carter was), would bring morality to the body politic more effectively than Carter. Hence, every issue has now become a moral issue whether it is differences over public education, public housing, or the legitimacy of the income tax.

Ironically, Speaker Gingrich was perfectly willing to use the evil media to force the resignation of Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright in 1989 and to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998. My point is that both the morality issue and the convenience of the media are "legitimate" when they favor Conservatives. However, when they work against Conservatives, that appears to be another story.

Finally, do you suppose that President Obama doesn’t have his own issues with the media? If you believe that the media has spared President Obama, then how have you learned about his shortcomings-- both political and otherwise -- except through the media?

As for this observer, I care very little about Newton Gingrich’s marital morality or lack thereof. From a moral standpoint, Newt Gingrich is, as I see it, perfectly qualified to be president. Aside from this current controversy, our history is laden with questions about presidential morality or the lack of such.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson became the first victim of moral attack during a presidential campaign. Remember, this was the man who largely wrote the Declaration of Independence and who is quoted again and again (especially by Conservatives) as the author of all that’s morally principled about our free society. He was attacked because he was a deist religiously rather than a proclaimed Christian. If he were elected, cried the Federalists, good citizens would be forced to hide their bibles. However, Jefferson did prevail. I wonder: what did either morality or immorality have to do with Jefferson’s greatest achievement, the Louisiana Purchase?

In 1828, the highly educated and principled John Quincy Adams faced Andrew Jackson, the marital bigamist and the crude frontier duelist, for the presidency. John Adams wanted to make lasting treaties with the Indians as required by some Supreme Court rulings. Andy Jackson wanted to move them west as quickly as it could be done. Granted, he hoped to do it without violence, but he was clearly willing to use violence when it became practical. Jackson won the election, but the moral question remains! Whose side had the high moral ground, do you think?

In 1860, candidate Lincoln was rather distinguished by his lack of church membership. He didn’t join a church until he got to Washington.

President Theodore Roosevelt wanted to remove “In God We Trust” from our money. As Teddy saw it, putting God’s name on our money was blasphemous. Apparently, TR believed that God was more important than money! Where do you suppose TR got his sense of morality?

In recent years, both parties have raised assistance to constituencies to the height of morality. In the 1930s, FDR clearly made help for the unemployed and the poor in general a moral issue. In the 1960s, civil rights was, as JFK put it, “…primarily a moral issue.” During the recent Iraqi war, antiwar protestors made President George W. Bush’s very advocacy of the war a moral issue.

The value in the question “whose character counts?” lies in the opportunity to consider everyone’s character. If Newt Gingrich goes to the White House next January, I’ll be sad, not because of his character, but because of his priorities. As I see it, we’ve never had a presidential candidate or a president who wasn’t genuinely interested in doing what he could for the betterment of our country. It’s not the morality one brings to the public service that counts. It's the applicability of practical priorities which move us onward and upward to that plateau of nobility, principle and purpose which our form of government is all about.

So, whose character counts, you ask. I hate to break it to you, but only yours and mine!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY