This is Part II in our series entitled, How in the Heck? We are looking at America’s current political crisis—fraught with fears, absurdities and paranoia—and wondering how we got here. To read the introduction to this series, or previous entries, please see this link.
Preface
It seems our discussion on politics has been waylaid by weather. Over the past month—amid hurricanes, flooding, mass destruction and relief efforts—I took a few moments each night to research and record some simple political convictions (a weird, sort-of cathartic relief effort for a national calamity). With the election bearing down on us—like Hurricane Helene bore down on our western North Carolina community 5 weeks ago—I’d like to share our last political common-sense reminder (bad weather has ordained a condensed version of the original idea). At the least, I hope readers discover some reasonable explanation for the political hurricane into which we are about to descend. At best, may it offer a dose of discernment, gleaned from history and nurtured in the fields of a democratic republic.
Please recall, per previous post, we are referring to political candidates as Orange and Apple, and political parties as Port and Starboard. Although highly unlikely, these correlations may help us lose sight of the biases we Americans so quickly adopt. One final word: owing to Helene, our narrative is also abbreviated. Latenight writing, like David Letterman, can only take you so far.
The year is 44 BC. Julius Caesar has been assassinated. Why, you ask?
It seems his accumulation of power has raised concerns. Highly ambitious and dedicated to promoting his sanctimonious image, Caesar has portrayed himself as the savior of the Roman Republic. Boasting of his accomplishments, and nurturing an insatiable appetite for admiration, he appoints himself dictator for life. For good measure, he has tossed-in a few grandiose titles—Imperator, Pontifex Maximus, Tribune of the Pleb, Father of the Country.
Demonstrating an extreme lack of empathy for perceived opponents, he has also systematically eliminated (murdered) any threats to his power. Disregarding traditional republican values, Caesar’s authoritarian tendencies have alienated the Senate and threatened the future of Rome. He has been looking and acting like a bonafide dictator. The senators of the Roman Republic have grown wary. A few of them have decided to do something about it. Hoping to save the Republic, they have stabbed him 23 times.
Rather than strengthen the empire, Julius Caesars character, and untimely murder, precipitated a civil war. A war that expedited the end of the Roman Republic and secured the rise of imperial rule (a novel political system where emperors held supreme authority and exercised corruption with impunity).
Our point? Despite his remarkably obvious character flaws, more than a few Roman senators had championed Caesar. His military conquests and transformative policies (debt relief, land redistribution and entertainment spectacles) had inspired an extreme, cult-like following. Ignoring his character—arrogant, egotistical, vengeful and self-obsessed—his supporters eventually came to regret their blind allegiance.
By way of Caesar, and a few other self-evident realities, we hope to unequivocally establish the following premise: Decent policies plus crappy character is, without fail, a political recipe for disaster.
To clarify—despite well-intentioned, beneficial policies, kingdoms can implode if those same policies are implemented by leaders who lack integrity, empathy, or a commitment to the people they are supposedly serving. Other Caesar-ish examples span the globe: Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, and Adolf Hitler come to mind. Exactly 100 years ago—perhaps still swimming around in our shallow attention span—Hitler rose to prominence on a platform of practical economic policies, industry initiatives, traditional values, and national/religious fervor. He also possessed a belief in his own infallibility, ruthlessly eliminated perceived enemies, utilized fear and hatred to build his support base and exploited millions for his own, demented, self-serving goals.
Thanks to Netflix, we all know how that ended.
If we are suggesting (actually quantifying) how character flaws can be problematic for political leaders, and the nations who empower them, it may be worth clarifying what we mean by character. For our purposes, character is that generic term humans use when referring to an individual who does what most consider the right thing. A mortal with strong character exhibits exemplary behavior; is generally known for their high moral standards; and exhibits clear signs of courage and compassion. In Julius Caesar’s day, Romans may have made a passing comment about character in this manner:
“Even though his master was a complete moronious, Octavius always responded with character.”
“In the midst of all the finger-pointing and cowardice, Fabia’s character was a breath of fresh, latin air.”
“Claudias had exceptional character! Despite growing up in Carthage, he was always fair and readily dedicated himself to the service of others.”
These better versions of the Roman populace, imaginary but analogously useful, would have inspired and made the empire a better place. These better qualities were non-existent in Julius Caesar. These better qualities are increasingly rare in American politicians.
Fade to the present.
For on-going 8 years now we’ve been hearing this sentence, or something close to it, “Well . . . I don’t really like his character, but I agree with his policies. So naturally, he has my vote.”
As you may have already guessed, this sentiment refers to Orange and his less-than-reputable moral fiber. His character flaws are patently obvious and widely recorded: habitual, innovative and unfounded lies; bullying and intimidating behavior; arrogance bordering on lunacy; a vengeful mentality; a disregard for ethical norms (honesty, integrity, compassion); a boorish womanizer; and a malicious conman, (strategically fostering division to gain wealth and power).
Not unlike many politicians before him, Orange adds to these distinctive flaws the character-diminishing trait of provocation. Amalgamating his bundle of deficiencies into an obscenely feigned disgust, he generates outrage like Dupont generates toxic waste. Every imaginable event, statistic or thing—crime rates, the Olympics, product recalls, the war in Ukraine, hamburgers prices, FEMA responses and NC hurricanes—becomes politicized fodder for scandal, conspiracy and offense.
Does Orange possess any positive character traits? Quite a few supporters seem to be smitten with his outspoken, buck-the-system charisma; his resilient 52-lives (outmaneuvering legal challenges and criminal charges); his commitment to conservative values (despite his incompatible personal choices); his fealty to the religious (coupled with an Orange Bible); and his capacity to remain unfazed while millions consider him to be an insurrectionist.
All this to say, unsurprisingly, the majority of these qualities bear no resemblance to inspirational, exemplary, empire-flourishing character (like Pee Wee Herman bears no resemblance to Arnold Schwarzenegger). Yet, we continue to hear the logic, “I don’t like his character . . . Orange has my vote.” In response, let’s be blunt (November 5th is drawing nigh). This sentiment, weighting policy over character, is faulty. Empire-wrecking faulty.
If we are saying, “Due to alarming character flaws, and despite backing a smattering of decent policies, Orange is a very poor choice for directing the American Experiment,” then you may be correctly asking, “What about Apple? Isn’t she a piece of work too!”
To be fair—and to consider our character-is-crucial reminder—we ought to compare Apples to Oranges (our two famously ill-fitted candidates). Weighing-in across the political gambit (Starboards, Ports, Independents and all those who profoundly despise Apple), her character also evokes substantial concerns:
On the policy color-palette, her viewpoints tend to be gray (a mishmash of vaguely unclear, wavering stances, suggesting duplicity)
As a former prosecutor, some consider her to be overly harsh and vindictive.
Her word-salad speeches can not only be bewildering, but exhibit a rehearsed and insincere tone. According to some, Apple supersedes many of these public insincerities with a sinister laugh (betraying a sinister character).
Apple periodically exudes a non-serious tone, an incongruence observed by the contrast in her facial expressions and body language vs. the grave topic she is addressing (a character flaw we might call, “goofy disconnection”).
Her personal ambitions are said to be oversized.
Apple supports what approximately 40% of Americans believe to be an unethical and distasteful morality—abortion, homosexuality, and transgender agendas rank high on her list of priorities.
Interestingly, no one—even her opponents—accuse Apple of being a narcissistic, unhinged, vengeful, bullying, outrage-producing, lying-machine. Nor have 14 people accused her of sexual assault; nor has a jury convicted her private business of conning the US government out of 1.7 million tax dollars. By way of extrapolation, we can assume the absence of such accusations sheds a favorable light on Apple.
Other Apple positives? She is said to be empathetic, hard-working, intelligent, capable, and committed to the rule-of-law.
On a character-scale of 1-10, where Orange generously scores a -35, Apple would likely weigh-in at a mediocre 5. Of course, we’re only discussing character, not policy . . . but that’s the entire point of our exercise. In the character contest, no matter how much you dislike her and her policies, Apple wins by 15 touchdowns.
Thus far in our essay, we've been saying the following: "From a purely historical, and what we believe to be common-sense perspective, abominable character in politicians (-35) produces abominable outcomes for the citizens they profess to serve." Like a pharmaceutical disclaimer, these abominable outcomes may include, but are not limited to: loss of public trust, divisive norms, administrative chaos, poor decision-making, zero accountability, legal challenges, misinformation, polarization, and authoritarian power plays.
These were predictable outcomes for the likes of Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, and friends. Lest we be unclear, these are also predictable outcomes for the likes of Orange. To our point, lousy character, regardless of policy, leads nations down dark paths. Every. Single. Time.
Another aspect of our character-argument entails a very simple principle (and one we are working hard to drive home). It is a concept not always grasped by the voting public, but fully appreciated by the farmer: You reap what you sow.
We bury pumpkin seeds, we yield pumpkins. We plant oranges trees, we harvest oranges. We allow an individual with a lifetime habit of arrogance, dishonesty, manipulation and unethical conduct to run for the highest office in the land . . . and we invite that individual to employ his dishonorable character to secure re-election; and, if elected, deploy the same unscrupulous character in administering his new government. Ethics, and policies, be damned.
Try as we may, Americans cannot escape the impact of electing someone of low character. January 6, 2020, should have been our collective, “Ah-hah!,” Einstein moment. Instead, the moral minority are the only ones still asking the poignant question, “How in the heck is that guy still on the ballot?”
And that brings us back to our pressing question: “How in the heck did we get here”—that is, this unique place in history, where character has come to weigh so little on the American conscience.
The date was August 8, 1974. I recall it well, not because it was my 16th birthday, but because it was the day Richard Nixon resigned from the U.S. presidency. I happened to be attending a conference, and when the MC made the announcement, 2,000 people gasped. When the air had returned to the indoor auditorium, ladies began weeping, men bowed their heads in shock, teenagers (me) scratched their heads. At the time—a nation with an almost 200 year history of caring about the integrity of their leaders—Nixon’s resignation was a national gut-punch. Our president had attempted to manipulate the system, had lied, had breached our trust, had scandalized the U.S. government.
Looking back at Nixon’s criminal misstep (Watergate), alongside the national display of trauma, we are tempted to howl with laughter at the 2024 incongruence. The political scandals of today—an almost competitive demonstration of indiscretions, corruption and unethical behavior—are met with a collective, apathetic shrug. We would laugh at the irony, if only it weren’t so troublesome.
How did this collapse of character—this worrisome disinterest in those qualities that make for virtuous employees, trusted colleagues and effective leaders—become so normalized in American culture? It’s a question answered by large books and dedicated scholars. Suffice it to say, we shall need to summarize (and generalize):
Americans succumbed to drama. Disinterested in the boredom of intelligent discourse, integrity and honorable character, we preferred salacious, fear-driven, tabloid-quality statesman. Trail blazers of a new, drama-a-minute, finger-pointing, bold frontier. Highly entertaining!
Our mind-shapers—educators, authors, script writers, movie directors, politicians and pastors—discovered gray to be much more interesting than color. No more black and white, wrong or right, good or evil. No more authority, no more absolutes, no more truth. You—the enlightened American—define reality. What qualities make for a good President? Whatever serves your worldview!
Americans normalized, then glorified, bad behavior. Examples? Professional football players, paid millions, taunt opposing fans and gyrate in the end zone (yea me, I scored a touchdown!). Popular prostitutes masquerade as normal, job-holding porn stars (thanks Stormy Daniels!). Drug-dealing, rap-singing inmates—who songs feature violence, sex, misogyny and substance abuse—host the American version of the international Olympics (thanks Snoop Dog!). Role Models? Apparently.
The rise of sensationalist media and the 24-hour news cycle shifted the focus from substantive issues to scandals and controversies, creating an environment where character and integrity garner little attention.
A horde of parents and educators, both undervalued by the general public, failed to prioritize character as part of the core curriculum.
Changes in societal values, particularly during the late 20th century, emphasized individualism and success over shared responsibility and ethical behavior (i.e. “Follow your heart” and “Follow the money” became America’s mantra).
Failure to hold folks accountable—whether in the criminal justice system, the workplace or the political arena—fostered a sense of entitlement, “I’m entitled to success, freedom, respect, wealth, whatever my heart desires, regardless of my unethical behavior.”
There’s probably more we could say about his, but you get the idea. For America, character-driven citizenship and leadership have been, in evolutionary terms, naturally de-selected.
How shall we conclude this, "How in the Heck," essay? I’m afraid, with what we consider to be, bad news.
It is our belief that Orange will become the 47th President of the United States. Millions will vote for him—espousing anti-abortion, pro-industry, gun ownership, nationalism, traditional values, spiritual piety and party loyalty—but few will bother to note his character flaws, falsely assuming, it matters little.
We hope we are wrong . . . but the die has been cast. The lessons of the Caesars and Hitlers have been lost, common sense has faded and we must reap what we have sown. The consequences will soon be upon us.
Common-sense Reminder: Hire—and elect—individuals with high moral and ethical standards. You will have few regrets.
Next time, an entirely different topic!
Subscribe to follow.
If these thoughts resonate,
please consider sharing, using the links below.
Ben, though disclaimeth too much. This is a dead-on, very well written piece. I fear that Apple may be elected and Orange will do all he can to make sure all hell breaks lose. Whatever happens Tuesday the rest of the week will be ugly and disturbing. Praying for Grace all around...(Jonathan Bentley)