Neither Left nor Right, but Catholic
CHARACTER AND THE PRESIDENCY
By Stephen M. Krason
In his 1974 book, The Roots of American Order, which he viewed as his contribution to America’s Bicentennial, the great scholar Russell Kirk said that the virtue and dignity of a great President like Lincoln was “still respected by the American democracy.” In the 2016 presidential campaign so far, it is not so clear that such considerations are still in the minds of many American voters.
The Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump, has assembled a substantial following in the electorate that is so unwavering in its support that he boasted that he could shoot someone in the middle of New York City and it wouldn’t hurt him. While his example is hyperbole, it not only illustrates his point but also indicates the degree to which attention to character has slipped off the radar screen in our current politics.
Trump has not only had multiple marriages, but a background of serial adultery—which he virtually boasted about in his first book. He has made a sizable amount of his fortune on the back of human weakness, with gambling casinos. His Atlantic City casino featured a virtual strip club. His massive business successes have been accompanied by shady business practices (many of which have led to lawsuits), questionable associations, loan defaults, using political connections and maneuvering to get what he wants (as with the much-publicized attempt to have eminent domain invoked—he also did it elsewhere—against a widow who wouldn’t sell her property so he could expand his Atlantic City casino operation), and a tendency generally to use pressure tactics on those who get in his way. One notable example was the massive lawsuit he filed against the Miss USA beauty pageant contestant who went public with evidence that the results were predetermined. Trump has admitted that his life has not been one of moderation, and it certainly hasn’t been characterized by humility. When asked about why he was justified in receiving compensation of two million dollars per year for being board chairman of a company that went bankrupt, he said, “Because I’m a genius.” He has over the years made many similar statements. While he contributes to charity, it’s not so clear that being service-oriented has been a high priority for him. He said he got into real estate simply because it is lucrative.
Trump is hardly the only 2016 presidential candidate that serious character questions can be raised about. The public widely views Hillary Clinton as dishonest, but she’s still the Democratic frontrunner. The Clinton shadiness is almost legendary. Her behavior in the Benghazi episode, the mounting evidence about misuse of her personal email accounts when Secretary of State in apparent violation of espionage laws (which would easily by now have gotten a lesser figure indicted), and the issues concerning foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation and influence buying seem to have done little to hurt her politically. It’s almost as if for a significant enough of a segment of the electorate all this is irrelevant.
Her main opponent, Bernie Sanders, apart from his radical past, lived a “hippie” existence, divorced his first wife after giving her the life of living in a shack, fathered a child out of wedlock with another woman whom he cohabited with, had an irregular work history before being elected to public office when nearly forty, has a reputation for improvidence, and is now married to a woman who identifies as a Catholic and was also previously divorced and had children (I don’t know if she ever got an annulment or is practicing). The fact that he has fervently clung to his socialism throughout his adult life perhaps says the most about his character. It indicates a resistance rooted in the will to getting a sound intellectual formation, being attentive to history, and properly shaping one’s views about the world. The literature about the evils of socialism and the historical record of its failures is abundant. Sanders, with his Catholic wife, could have started by reading the encyclicals Quod Apostolici Muneris and Quadragesimo Anno. I doubt he ever has.
The term of the year in the Republican race has been “liar.” While this is a serious charge to make against someone in any context, a few of the candidates don’t seem to blink an eye about it. They seem to be following one of “rules for radicals” of Barack Obama’s inspiration Saul Alinsky: say something enough times so people will start to believe it whether it’s true or not. Actually, doing this says a lot more about the character of the accuser than about the person he is trying to tarnish. It seems as if these candidates—who call themselves Christian—have never heard of the sins of calumny and disparagement. It seems as if Ted Cruz has been the most frequent target of the “liar” slur. Regardless of whether one supports him and whatever his other shortcomings, upon examining the subjects that have elicited this attack on him I have found, frankly, that it has not been warranted. Is it good to have people who could become President making strident and untruthful attacks on their political opponents?
Cruz also took heat for his flyer that, in effect, “shamed” voters who haven’t turned out in the past as a way to get them to the Iowa caucuses. To be sure, it’s not a tactic I care for. However, both parties have used this approach in elections in various states, apparently to try to counter voter apathy. That didn’t stop Rubio and Trump from trying to convince voters that it shows that Cruz is “unethical.” That certainly seems to be an overreach, perhaps a deliberate example of rash judgment not far from the sin of disparagement.
Charity, another quality of character, has certainly not been a hallmark of this campaign season, either. Confusion from a CNN report led to the Cruz campaign erroneously telling caucus-goers in Iowa that Ben Carson was withdrawing. Even though it almost certainly didn’t affect the result and Cruz explained why it happened and publicly apologized to him—and even expressed his admiration of him—Carson kept hammering Cruz about it. It was hardly a charitable response.
Speaking of humility, while it’s understandable that candidates want to stress their accomplishments, all the candidates embellishing of themselves—such as by claiming to have led this or that fight in Congress—does not exactly demonstrate it.
The campaign so far has been anything but an exercise in civility. That is another thing that tells us something about the character of the candidates. At a time when the country cries out for civility, what we need are politicians who can promote it while at the same time standing unflinchingly for sound principles (a rare combination, to be sure).
Distinct character flaws clearly weakened or undermined three presidents of recent memory. LBJ’s egotism and unwillingness to take criticism led to a Vietnam policy that was his undoing. Nixon’s sense of insecurity, secretiveness, and tendency to see critics and opponents as enemies led to his Watergate disgrace and resignation. Bill Clinton’s inability to control his sexual impulses, along with his dishonesty, led to his impeachment.
Character, then, has made or broken various presidencies. Its deficiency has caused ensuing agony for the country. It is the essential starting point for any public man or woman and the basis of integrity in politics. So why do voters currently seem so oblivious to it?
Stephen M. Krason’s “Neither Left nor Right, but Catholic” column appears monthly (sometimes bi-monthly) in Crisis. He is Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies and Associate Director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is also Co-Founder and President of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. Among his books is The Transformation of the American Democratic Republic, and two recent edited volumes: The Crisis of Religious Liberty and Challenging the Secular Culture: A Call to Christians.
Stephen Krason's Blog 
CHARACTER AND THE PRESIDENCY
Neither Left nor Right, but Catholic
CHARACTER AND THE PRESIDENCY
By Stephen M. Krason
In his 1974 book, The Roots of American Order, which he viewed as his contribution to America’s Bicentennial, the great scholar Russell Kirk said that the virtue and dignity of a great President like Lincoln was “still respected by the American democracy.” In the 2016 presidential campaign so far, it is not so clear that such considerations are still in the minds of many American voters.
The Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump, has assembled a substantial following in the electorate that is so unwavering in its support that he boasted that he could shoot someone in the middle of New York City and it wouldn’t hurt him. While his example is hyperbole, it not only illustrates his point but also indicates the degree to which attention to character has slipped off the radar screen in our current politics.
Trump has not only had multiple marriages, but a background of serial adultery—which he virtually boasted about in his first book. He has made a sizable amount of his fortune on the back of human weakness, with gambling casinos. His Atlantic City casino featured a virtual strip club. His massive business successes have been accompanied by shady business practices (many of which have led to lawsuits), questionable associations, loan defaults, using political connections and maneuvering to get what he wants (as with the much-publicized attempt to have eminent domain invoked—he also did it elsewhere—against a widow who wouldn’t sell her property so he could expand his Atlantic City casino operation), and a tendency generally to use pressure tactics on those who get in his way. One notable example was the massive lawsuit he filed against the Miss USA beauty pageant contestant who went public with evidence that the results were predetermined. Trump has admitted that his life has not been one of moderation, and it certainly hasn’t been characterized by humility. When asked about why he was justified in receiving compensation of two million dollars per year for being board chairman of a company that went bankrupt, he said, “Because I’m a genius.” He has over the years made many similar statements. While he contributes to charity, it’s not so clear that being service-oriented has been a high priority for him. He said he got into real estate simply because it is lucrative.
Trump is hardly the only 2016 presidential candidate that serious character questions can be raised about. The public widely views Hillary Clinton as dishonest, but she’s still the Democratic frontrunner. The Clinton shadiness is almost legendary. Her behavior in the Benghazi episode, the mounting evidence about misuse of her personal email accounts when Secretary of State in apparent violation of espionage laws (which would easily by now have gotten a lesser figure indicted), and the issues concerning foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation and influence buying seem to have done little to hurt her politically. It’s almost as if for a significant enough of a segment of the electorate all this is irrelevant.
Her main opponent, Bernie Sanders, apart from his radical past, lived a “hippie” existence, divorced his first wife after giving her the life of living in a shack, fathered a child out of wedlock with another woman whom he cohabited with, had an irregular work history before being elected to public office when nearly forty, has a reputation for improvidence, and is now married to a woman who identifies as a Catholic and was also previously divorced and had children (I don’t know if she ever got an annulment or is practicing). The fact that he has fervently clung to his socialism throughout his adult life perhaps says the most about his character. It indicates a resistance rooted in the will to getting a sound intellectual formation, being attentive to history, and properly shaping one’s views about the world. The literature about the evils of socialism and the historical record of its failures is abundant. Sanders, with his Catholic wife, could have started by reading the encyclicals Quod Apostolici Muneris and Quadragesimo Anno. I doubt he ever has.
The term of the year in the Republican race has been “liar.” While this is a serious charge to make against someone in any context, a few of the candidates don’t seem to blink an eye about it. They seem to be following one of “rules for radicals” of Barack Obama’s inspiration Saul Alinsky: say something enough times so people will start to believe it whether it’s true or not. Actually, doing this says a lot more about the character of the accuser than about the person he is trying to tarnish. It seems as if these candidates—who call themselves Christian—have never heard of the sins of calumny and disparagement. It seems as if Ted Cruz has been the most frequent target of the “liar” slur. Regardless of whether one supports him and whatever his other shortcomings, upon examining the subjects that have elicited this attack on him I have found, frankly, that it has not been warranted. Is it good to have people who could become President making strident and untruthful attacks on their political opponents?
Cruz also took heat for his flyer that, in effect, “shamed” voters who haven’t turned out in the past as a way to get them to the Iowa caucuses. To be sure, it’s not a tactic I care for. However, both parties have used this approach in elections in various states, apparently to try to counter voter apathy. That didn’t stop Rubio and Trump from trying to convince voters that it shows that Cruz is “unethical.” That certainly seems to be an overreach, perhaps a deliberate example of rash judgment not far from the sin of disparagement.
Charity, another quality of character, has certainly not been a hallmark of this campaign season, either. Confusion from a CNN report led to the Cruz campaign erroneously telling caucus-goers in Iowa that Ben Carson was withdrawing. Even though it almost certainly didn’t affect the result and Cruz explained why it happened and publicly apologized to him—and even expressed his admiration of him—Carson kept hammering Cruz about it. It was hardly a charitable response.
Speaking of humility, while it’s understandable that candidates want to stress their accomplishments, all the candidates embellishing of themselves—such as by claiming to have led this or that fight in Congress—does not exactly demonstrate it.
The campaign so far has been anything but an exercise in civility. That is another thing that tells us something about the character of the candidates. At a time when the country cries out for civility, what we need are politicians who can promote it while at the same time standing unflinchingly for sound principles (a rare combination, to be sure).
Distinct character flaws clearly weakened or undermined three presidents of recent memory. LBJ’s egotism and unwillingness to take criticism led to a Vietnam policy that was his undoing. Nixon’s sense of insecurity, secretiveness, and tendency to see critics and opponents as enemies led to his Watergate disgrace and resignation. Bill Clinton’s inability to control his sexual impulses, along with his dishonesty, led to his impeachment.
Character, then, has made or broken various presidencies. Its deficiency has caused ensuing agony for the country. It is the essential starting point for any public man or woman and the basis of integrity in politics. So why do voters currently seem so oblivious to it?
Stephen M. Krason’s “Neither Left nor Right, but Catholic” column appears monthly (sometimes bi-monthly) in Crisis. He is Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies and Associate Director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is also Co-Founder and President of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. Among his books is The Transformation of the American Democratic Republic, and two recent edited volumes: The Crisis of Religious Liberty and Challenging the Secular Culture: A Call to Christians.