Reality, Morality, and Character
Who can be entrusted with such power?
In a previous article, I argued that a moral measure is not sufficient for making political decisions. If morals are good, how can that be the case?
In simplest terms, politics uses moral principles as tools for gaining votes in order to access office. To use only a moral measuring stick, one would have to begin by arguing that morality is not to be used, but to be obeyed. Absolute morals are not my servants, they are my Masters.
But there is more to it than that. There is another reason: it is the “take a reality pill” view.
The Reality Pill
A few years ago, over lunch, I was enjoying the conversation with a good friend who is 20 years my senior. When the subject turned to politics, I started to speak of how moral clarity forbade me from voting for certain people. To which, he retorted, “But politics is the art of the pragmatic and compromise.”
It was a helpful viewpoint, and a corrective. What does that mean?
At its worst, which was not the case for my friend, it is the embrace of inherent corruption in politics. At its best he was calling me to face the nature of any government in any human society since the sin of Adam. It is always about getting less than you want and prefer — or even contrary to what you want.
Why is that?
It’s complicated
Until Jesus establishes his righteous kingdom, we live with mixed company and complexity. Everyone is a little bit twisted. No one has all the facts. People disagree. Sin is present. Situations are complicated. As a result, whatever the government does is always less than perfect and often requires a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Examples: The DA’s office has a budget — where do they spend it? Should they do a plea bargain with a criminal lower on the food chain to get at one higher? This adolescent is a first time offender, should they receive a warning? You get the idea.
The demand for perfectly moral laws and objectives is unrealistic. Utopian visions are dangerous. The most dangerous people I have known are the “it’s obvious and what to do is not open for debate” crowd. Politics, especially in a republic, representing voters of many perspectives, is anything but the imposition of absolutes through law.
Isn’t that compromise? As a Christian I can abandon idealism and utopian visions because I know that outside of the final kingdom of Jesus at the end of history, absolute morals are always applied with imperfection and inconsistency. This is realism. I adjust my expectations. Read Ecclesiastes.
But what about the idealists?
Utopianism1 of the Right and the Left
We live in a time of utopian visions. Both the Marxist Left and the Christian Right are seeking an ideal nation. Their definitions are quite different but they are both utopian.
On the Right, it takes many shapes. One is a breed of Christian nationalism that says “legislation should be conformed to the Mosaic Law.” Period. But more generally the Right insists that marriage should be only heterosexual and lifetime, no abortions should be allowed, every crime should be punished, freedoms should be guaranteed.
On the Left, it looks like the ideology of a class-less equality and diversity and inclusion, the Green New Deal, utter freedom in sexual identity and expression, the repression of dissent and greed, and the use of the state to achieve this.
Both are highly moralistic. Both are absolutist. Both have a “take no hostages” and “winner takes all” strategy. Both are wrong-headed. Why?
Utopia East of Eden?
They are wrong-headed because what they demand is impossible. One may as well insist that everyone be healthy all the time.
We live in a fallen world with fallen people of diverse perspectives. No human power will ever produce a comprehensively just and merciful society. Only Christ will do that by his redemption, recreating us into new people. Our human condition will not yield to our policies. We are “making an attempt” at order, justice, compassion. It is a worthwhile endeavor because order is better than chaos.
Principled Realism
Those who developed the Constitution were principled realists. There is nothing utopian about America. They limited government power to accomplish what we can agree on even with our differences2. Our challenge is that the differences have become more diverse than anyone in 1776 could have imagined. There will be no return to a nation in which every citizen owns the morals of European Christendom. (see my previous post on this)
In such a context morals are significant and absolute (even when selective) but we expect them to be applied so as to get a 50% goal.3
Does that mean we have not hope?
In Such a Society, Character Matters
If morals must be weighed against realistic policy in the midst of a pluralistic society, how do we determine whom we can trust to think with realism about moral principles? How do we avoid governance by people whose moral code is malleable and who only use it for self-serving purposes?
I say we look for people of character.
I am not denying the weakness of us all. But I do think universal sinfulness means there are no distinctions between people and their character. There are people of relatively good and bad character.
Ok, let me back up — let me define character.
What is character?
Classically, character was a term used to describe habits of life — to predict the most likely actions and words of someone. People of good character most likely act with wisdom and righteousness and mercy. People of bad character most likely act with deceit, domination, and self-dealing.
To believe there is such a thing as character means to believe that the dignity of humans is not totally corrupted by sin. God has written his law on every human heart. People know what is right and wrong. And some people live generally by those laws. They may be self-righteous or have hidden sins, but in public relationships their word is their bond. They have lines that they will not cross in their words and actions.
To believe in character is also to see that every action or word we speak is a trend, not an isolated event. If I lie once, I have begun a pattern of lying, Unless I admit the wrong, and turn from it, I am on the road to becoming a liar. If I speak the truth when pressured to lie, I am beginning a trend of courage and honesty.
We all believe in character
Some say this is a crazy standard — that everyone is corrupt and there are no people of good character. But none of us lives like that.
Suppose you are looking to hire a contractor to do work around your home. Obviously you get bids from a few, but you should not decide solely on price. I think many of us who have done so, only to regret saving a little money at the price of shoddy work, not completed on time.
We learn to ask for references, or to read reviews. And if someone we know tells us that a particular provider lies, overbills, etc — we do not hire them. Why? Because we believe in character.
Character is not rigid or brittle.
People of character can be principled and wise. They can be clear about right and wrong and realistic about how those principles apply. They can argue their case in good faith, accept all sides getting something of what they seek, and do this without deception, demagoguery, or power mongering.
Rigid people are not people of good character. By rigid I mean ideological, uncompromising on their agenda. Inflexible ideologues are perversions of good character. That applies as much to AOC as to MTG (and if you do not know who that refers to, I am happy you don’t).
Trust is earned or lost based on behavior
The habit of someone’s life is proven by their long term behavior. My Dad was, by reputation, a man of good character. Generally speaking, he spoke truth and did not lie, he kept his promises, he paid people a living wage, and treated people in need with mercy. He had character proven over 60 years of life in one community.
He also believed in character. Sometimes that was jarring.
He had an employee on his leadership team who came to him one day and apologized for lying in a report he had given the previous day. He said he had made up the numbers so as to hide his mistakes and to “impress the boss.” Dad, after accepting his apology, asked him to find a new job. He said he would give him a good reference, but noted that he could not fully trust him any more as truth and trust were essential to the leadership team.
I once thought Dad was harsh. I no longer think so. I have come to believe that what someone does is indicative of character, and some flaws of character are unacceptable in certain situations.
Character is also about what people say
Sometimes what people say and who they hang out with is the measure of their character. We are daily told of the “crazy” ideas and “crazy” company that candidates keep. What makes someone “crazy” is their beliefs or ideas, whether they conform to an assumed standard. But where do we get the standard?
What are those standards? I can think of a number:
Christians are grounded in God’s standards. Those standards judge the standards of any society at any time. God’s word is clear on some principles of character.
The first is people of character LIVE by what they SAY. They are not moralizers who seek to use power to do what they do not lift a finger to do — or to spend other people’s money on something to which they give next to nothing. Character is example.
It is also truth and honor. Whether they lie or prevaricate, whether they insult and disparage, are pretty good indications of bad character.
It is conformed to reality as God sees it. Their policies are indicative of character. If I told you that I believe it is morally justifiable to torture our pets, or that drowning an animal is reasonable entertainment, you would think me perverse. And you should.
What about these as indications of character: justifying adultery, excusing lies and deception, being two faced, hedging one’s principles for the sake of popularity, saying that a woman has a right to “do with her body” whatever she wishes until the baby is delivered, insisting an election was stolen even though there is no evidence, defending the right of teens to have transgender treatments without parental consent (or even with it)?
It sees power as a dangerous stewardship. People who love power are bad actors. People who believe and promise to wield power to solve many problems are also bad actors.
From God’s point of view, those are all crazy and perverse practices and ideas.
Courage is necessary
In all my years of learning about people and leaders who have had a net good effect in the world, the one mark of a person of good character is always courage. No one can be a principled realist, speak and live by their convictions, without incurring the wrath of their opponents.
People who are afraid of consequences for their words and actions are spineless sycophants or demagogues — and our politics, business, journalism, and educational systems are rife with them. People who bully are the same.
People of character would rather lose an election or a job than compromise basic ethical principles. It takes courage to be consistent.
Loyalty is secondary to principles. But loyalty has become the highest test. That is evil. It takes courage to be principled in the face of the demand for loyalty.
I respect the courage of people like David French. He has remained consistent in his principles and conclusions. Other evangelicals have waffled in their support of Trump/ I respect Tulsi Gabbard for leaving her party after seeking to change it. As much as I appreciated the efforts of Dean Phillips, he remains loyal to his party after it kicked him to the curb for not falling in line.
How does this apply to politics?
First, character is more important than policy. Someone of bad character, a demagogue, a lover of power, a polarizer, a manipulator will always make for bad governance. Good character can do good even in the midst of a twisted system.
Second, I have to believe that access to the levers of power, locally, regionally, or nationally is a powerful temptation to people of bad character. State governments control vast numbers of people. Congress has authority to spend trillions of dollars, and to create laws which are to be enforced coercively. Bad actors find that appealing.
Third, there are those who seek power for purposes of selfish gain, or to impose an ideology on others, to demand a utopian vision of equality or freedom, or to fight the other side. These kinds of people are dangerous.
Fourth, there are people who want office in order to serve. There are people of good character who wish to do good in the midst of the battle of politics.
That means, I must evaluate character.
What people say indicates character.
How they speak truth indicates character.
How they change or do not change their policies or principles is a statement of character.
If they advocate politically popular but morally evil policies, that too is indicative of character.
The more they grandstand and demagogue, the more they show a lack of character.
I am to look for people of character who see political power as an opportunity to serve the common good. They keep their vows to uphold the Constitution. They refuse to grandstand or play the demagogue. They respect the other side. Their principles remain fixed even if it costs them votes.
Where can we find such people?
I have wondered this for many years.Where is the man or woman of character who can be principled, argue their case, appeal to the common good, and not be sold out to their donors? They have been present at crucial moments of history. Think Lincoln or Churchill. Sadly, it seems to me that character is of no concern to the Republican and Democrat Parties not to many of the people who elect candidates for the President. There may be some in Congress or in State and Local governments.
Best Case Scenario: How do I evaluate?
At this stage of life I have friends in many places. Some are high up in government. From them I have learned that there are many people in public service who are people of character, who work hard at their jobs, and who produce legislation through principled debate and compromise. Generally, you do not hear much from them. They are too busy working.
I believe that only tested people, people have proven their character with lesser power, should be given greater power. A corrupt City Councilperson will be a corrupt Senator and do far more damage. Someone who abuses wealth, submits to the powers of their party, and bends truth to half truths should be kept from greater power.
One way to measure the character of someone is to look at what they have done. If it is an incumbent, learn their track record — have they worked for common ground? Have they produced solid legislation?
Evaluate their policies — have they changed them. Why have they changed them? Forget the commercials and mailings — go to their website, read reviews of what they mean. Are they evil or good in the eyes of the God of truth?
Evaluate their words — are they inflammatory? manipulative? are they two-faced? do they admit to wrongs?
Look at their leadership. Leaders do not blame others. Leaders are prepared to take responsibility to bring solutions than serve the common good.
Prayer
Thinking about character is such a society as ours can be depressing. But it need not be. It can be a call to pray for God to have mercy on our nation and give us men and women of character, who aspire to office, who are principled, and willing to argue their case, make compromises, in order to serve us all.
Merrian Webster: proposing or advocating impractically ideal social and political schemes.
I again recommend Jonathan Rauch’s The Constitution of Knowledge for one of the best arguments for this as the meaning of the Constitution. Braver Angels is seeking to restore this to our national character.
I am not denying the absolute nature of moral principles. I am saying that their application to governments and societies will always be relative. Even in the church, in which we all agree on the rules of God. we cannot make perfect application. Unitl the kingdom of God is consummated and there is a new heavens and new earth in which there is only righteousness, the law will always be imperfectly applied.