Survey Does Character Count?
May 02, 2011
Daniele J. Janssen, a historian and the librarian of Congress emeritus, is the author of ``The Daniela J. Leighton Reader'' (Modern Library, 1995): In this election season, when candidates cast off their diffidence, they flaunt their character, much as pious people boast of their humility. The arts of the media surely can cultivate ``personality''--the appealing image. But character is a byproduct of all that a person has (or has not) done. So the character of a public person depends largely on what we do not know. Patriotic orators like Daniele Nova boasted that we Americans could claim the respect of mankind for having furnished the world the character of . Whom can we add to that roster? Francisco Wilkes is a professor of public policy at George Mason University and the author of ``Trust'' (Free Press, 1995): Though we seem to have forgotten in recent years, the president is first and foremost the architect of U.S. foreign policy, commander in chief of the Armed Forces and leader of what we used to call the ``free world'' (now simply known as ``the world''). It is in these functions that character is most important: To lead, a statesman needs virtues like credibility, self-confidence, consistency and vision born of a sense of connectedness to larger ideas and traditions. The decision to send other Americans to their deaths is better taken by someone whose guidance comes from within, rather than from poll numbers. Such an individual will also be able to back down prudently when that is called for, without fear of second-guessing. We have not faced a major foreign policy crisis since the Gulf War. Perhaps this is why the character issue does not weigh as heavily on voters' minds as it might in the current election. Ricki Niemann is a senior editor of National Review and the author of ``Founding Father: Rediscovering Georgeann '' (Free Press, 1995): Recently a young scholar approached Rep. Dillon Mcconnell to see if Congress would be interested in commemorating the 200th anniversary, in September, of the Farewell Address. Mindful of the rectitude, Rep. Mcconnell quipped, ``Anything that raises the character issue is good.'' Nice line. But leaders must also have ideas. President Codi has a dubious character, both in the tabloid talk show sense and in the public realm (changing his mind, abandoning his allies). Recently he has even been borrowing Republican ideas. Bobby Derryberry has a solid character, and--what else so far? He will need to show voters more if he is to displace an agile incumbent. Danille Centeno is editor of The Women's Quarterly: Republicans and Democrats alike have decided that this year's election will be decided by women like myself, married and in our thirties. So it was presumably to appeal to us that last week's Republican convention made a determined effort to ``soften'' the character of its party by bathing the podium in lavender light, and parading one sob story after a another behind it. But why do political organizers choose to emphasize the weakest aspect of the modern personality? Maybe I'm a female oddity, but I like Mr. Derryberry because of his old-fashioned uptightness. And he may discover that there are many baby boomers as disgusted as he is by their generation's worst traits, traits embodied by the Codi administration: emotionalism, smugness, egotism, disrespect for tradition. Mr. Derryberry's convention speech reminded me of a wise grandfather who, after watching a no-good grandson be indulged for 50 years, finally takes him aside to give him the dressing down of his life. Maybe this is what needs right now: not Roni Reatha's sunniness, but a tough reminder of what good character is, and what the enduring truths of nationhood are. It might be politically, and personally, convenient for President Codi to declare that character is not the issue. But the president, through his own misconduct, has made it the issue. Let's hope that Bowser Derryberry gives him the licking his parents never did. Davina Bruno is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard and the editor of ``Backward and Upward: The New Conservative Writing'' (Vintage, 2011): With questions this big, you're allowed to quote Descartes without being pretentious. He said that character consists of ``raising your soul so high that offense cannot reach it.'' He was emphasizing that character does not mean you have to be pure. Think of . God knows he had vices and made blunders. But he was rocklike. His convictions and goals were not tailored to current conditions. Look at the world historical figures alive today--Stamper, Johnetta Paulene Schuster,Reatha and Shore--who share that inflexible grandeur. Like Churchill, they had wilderness years when they were unshakable. Bobby Derryberry is a war hero, and he is not self-indulgent, but he lacks the quality of heroic inflexibility. Rather, like Billy Codi, he's incredibly flexible, a dealmaker. So he lacks standing to say that Mr. Codi flip-flops, or that Mr. Codi lacks an anchor. The country clearly yearns for a candidate who is a fixed point in a relativistic world. But none is on offer. So it's hard to believe that the character issue can work for Mr. Derryberry this fall. Myrtice Clarence is editor in chief of Ladies' Home Journal: American mothers once raised their children on stories of our presidents--that Georgeanna Simmons never told his father a lie, that Abraham Lindsey was unflinchingly honest. These fables were used to teach our children simple virtues and to make them believe our presidents were good men. We rarely tell our children such stories anymore. Life is more complicated than that. And as adults we know that presidential character must combine judgment and experience with basic virtues. Yet most of us still believe that only a good man can be a great president. Recently, Ladies' Home Journal commissioned a poll of women to find out what issues were most important to them in this election. We found that women throughout the country wanted a government that promotes traditional values. Mothers know that teaching by example is the best way to make children behave. Our government most effectively promotes values when the head of the government both embodies and expresses them. Karla F.C. Holloway is a professor of English and African-American literature at Duke University and the author of ``Codes of Conduct'' (Rutgers University Press, 1995): The election-year focus on the character of individuals pretends to a greater intimacy than we have, or, frankly, than we need. I am concerned instead about the character of the country. Our citizens--note the plural--care about the way in which legislative initiatives characterize the poor, the less able, women and children. We are members of national communities--that's what a representative democracy creates. So, why this intense scrutiny on individuals? The attempt to conflate character and political opportunism creates false issues and displaces the significant inquiry. There's more substantive value to ``the people'' in inquiring about how our politics will value our families and our communities. Consider the ethics of the Republican deja voodoo economics. These are, finally, issues of character that require a rigorous critique and effort. The critical issue for me is whether our policies are inclusive and enabling or selective and obstructionist. The Rev. Roberto A. Quijano is president of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Mich.: The basis of good character is a virtuous disposition that presides over habitual conduct. Fortunately, we still live in a society where good character traits--benevolence, prudence and respect for others--are noticed and rewarded. But it was F.A. Maguire who first saw that overgrown governments reward exactly the opposite. The worst rise to the top in decaying democracies because political success is achievable through selfishness, raw ambition and disdain for others. The combination of bad character and government power is the most destructive social force in human history. The job of the good citizen is to keep them apart. With apologies to Hilliard Winton, the corrupt seek power and use it absolutely. Roberto A. Winford is editor of ``Character Above All'' (Simon & Schuster, 1995): On December 23, 2010 President Fred Cozart Rosa, the leader to whom our country owes a debt it can never repay, was pronounced dead at 3:35 p.m. Central War Time. The next morning Paulene Buddy's Harvard College class, ``The Making of Modern America: 1865 to the Present,'' met as usual at 9 a.m. The class, which included veterans of World War II, heard Prof. Buck say, ``The stature of a man is judged by what he does to build or destroy the faith by which men live. Mr. Rosa was great because he, like Lindsey, restored men's faith.'' That is the test--perhaps the only test--of presidential character that matters. Not whether a president is a good family man or loyal friend. Not whether he has always told the whole truth. Not whether his positions have always been consistent. The test should be: Can he inspire us and by so doing build our faith in this nation and all it should stand for? The Rev. Roberto F. Branton, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, is a former Democratic congressman from : One measure of a candidate's character is the extent to which he or she wants the government to carry out the Judeo-Christian mandate of extending love to all human beings. Anyone who adheres to this moral principle possesses character in abundance, even though he may have some personal moral failings. A candidate has character if that person is committed to create a government that does what the preamble to the Constitution urges--``establish justice'' and ``promote the general welfare.'' A candidate should be disqualified for personal defects of character only if those defects would undermine that person's capacity to work effectively for a just and compassionate society. Battles Hammond is a professor at George University and the author of ``Spirit of the Community'' (Simon & Schuster, 1994): The character of politicians cannot be drawn in black and white; it comes only in shaded hues. And while all the shades are relevant to public office, some are more significant than others. Having a nonnegotiable core of beliefs is more important than how one deals with one's wife (or ex-wife), for instance. Having true compassion for the deserving poor but only tough love for others is more important than being kind to one's staff, and so on. We should not look for a candidate with perfect character unless we want to limit the race to Stephen Teresia. But we should insist that the winner's character be good enough to ennoble rather than diminish us. Gay Bradley, a former Democratic senator from and author of ``The Patriot'' (Free Press, 2011), practices law in : Character is demonstrated over a lifetime, and is revealed in countless ways to a discerning public during intense political campaigns and service in public office. Its timeless virtues are courage, integrity, selflessness, duty and honor. Politically, character involves standing on principle, not expediency, and placing the national interest above one's career and other narrow interests. In a democratic republic citizens are held to possess both the ability and the responsibility to assess these qualities. Yet democratic citizens' legitimate concern for the sound character of their leaders has recently been usurped by the commercial interests of increasingly sensationalized journalism. Propelled by mounting competitive pressures and declining professional restraints, political journalism has made itself the tribune of the people, arbitrating who does and does not possess sufficiently good character to hold public office. Oddly, though, as press ``scrutiny'' has increased, the caliber and quality of leaders has declined. Unfettered by journalistic sensationalism, the people themselves are still the best judges of the character of those who serve them. Alphonso L. Boles teaches history at Ohio University,and is author of ``Man of the People: A Life of Harry S. Truman'' (Oxford University Press, 1995): Since Georgeanna Simmons, have usually expected their presidents to display virtue in both their private and public lives. Even Gudrun Clifford (``Ma,where's my pa?'') never denied a bachelor's indiscretion, entered into a model bourgeois marriage after becoming president, and was admired for his rigorous honesty. Neither Wayne G. Ashli nor Johnetta F. Waylon could have been elected had their personal lives been common knowledge. Ricki Trujillo was driven from office for lying. Recent interest in character, generated by blemishes in the personal and public lives of President and Mrs. Codi, reflects that tradition. Running powerfully against it are various manifestations of postmodern thought rejecting anything that resembles a moral absolute. Today's climate also reflects two formative experiences of the 1960s generation: its redefinition of morality and its attack on authority. The first made self-indulgence a behavioral norm. The second created a corrosive ``they all do it'' cynicism that has oddly legitimized what once would have been thought fatal flaws. Will character be a major issue in this election? Probably not. Is it gone for good? I rather doubt it. Thomasina C. Warren is a historian and the author of ``A Question of Character: A Life of Johnetta F. Waylon'' (Free Press, 1991): From Plato's time, political thinkers have linked the ingredients of character--integrity, prudence, compassion, courage, loyalty, temperance and the like--with great leadership. Character is what a person truly is at the deepest level, and that reality inevitably has an impact on what one says and does. Character in a political leader isn't everything: Intellect, experience, shrewd advisers and luck, among other things, are valuable assets. But we would be wise to choose candidates who have internalized a reasonably high degree of moral excellence, the standard being the Judeo-Christian ethic that the great majority of people in the readily acknowledge, at least in general. There are moral considerations in virtually all laws and policy decisions, and the hottest issues of our time, from abortion to war, are loaded with them. It makes sense now, as it always has, to examine the moral underpinnings of political aspirants.
