The Character Debate

LAGUY begins: "If I hire someone to paint my house, I'd be concerned about his character. Will he try to overcharge me, might he try to steal something? But when I "hire" politicians, character is pretty low on the list. I just want them to support programs I support, or do nothing. Character hardly enters enter into it. . . . [discussion about Hillary, Kerry, Swift boats] . . . In any case, I hope we don't see national office as a reward for being a good person (that should be its own reward), but as a job we're trying to fill with the person who'll do the best job."

My first response: "You are kidding, right? Worried about a painter who comes to paint your apartment and not worried about the character of someone who has control of many millions of dollars, who could sell every vote, who could run on one message and do the opposite (many repubs and dems have). Not to mention making decisions that effect EVERYTHING in your life. Your very freedom, your every action and interaction little and big. Too many things to list. (I will list some if you continue in this silliness). But no, you can choose to worry about your painter and whether his bad character will lead to a decorating disaster. Insert head in sand.Of course you think I care about character because I am a social conservative. I think that anyone: leftie, rightie, libertarian, or other should care very much about character."

LAGUY ripostes: "In response to Skip James comments (check out below), I'm quite serious about character not counting much. A national political figure makes huge decisions that effect hundreds of millions of people and trillions of dollars. That's what counts to me, not whether he sleeps around or drives like a maniac. Even if he hires family or takes a bribe, it's a small matter compared to someone of high character who supports bad policies. And don't forget what he does on his job is public knowledge, so whenever his "bad character" affects his judgment in a bad way, we can know about it and do something.That's why it's more important to know the character of a guy you hire to paint your house. A closer comparison, actually, would be there are two men, A and B. A is of the highest character and is an accountant who refuses to ever paint anything, B is a personal mystery but a great housepainter. Who would you rather hire paint your house? What matters foremost, so much that character should rarely enter into it, is what a politician will do, not how he acts in private moments."

My 2nd response: "Character counts. First, Rush Limbaugh is not my idea of character counts. He is arrogant and has flashes of strong work but day to day he does not approach great thinking. I know it is hard to maintain the kind of audience he has, but my judgement of talkers is based on whether they are thinkers. He does not have broad interests. He is moderately intellectually curious. There are much better right and left on talk radio.

Second and way more to the point, the guy who takes a bribe, is the guy who will screw you the voter. That guy will screw you publicly and somehow that makes it better for you. Once he has betrayed you, (publicly by not voting the way he said he would or privately by taking a bribe thereby selling your vote), it is too late. It is like having your house painted badly. You might be able to contact the BBB or complain but your house is still messed up and you still have to get another painter. Only now you don't trust painters so much.

Character counts in carpet installers. My carpet was installed by two guys who were high on pot at the time. And now my carpet is not laid properly. It is wearing out quicker in spots where it was not stretched out. And I can get someone else to relay my carpet at my expense or I can complain about these potheads. But to who? (Am I the victim of a victimless crime?)

So LAGuy's theoretical idea is: but what if these pot head carpet layers were geniuses at carpet laying? What if they did a fantastic job? What if the politician who lies and cheats in every other aspect of his life, really took care of his constituents? Its an interesting theory. It happens to be ridiculous in practice.

So, the next question is what if there are two guys, one who will paint your house but is a pot head and one who won't paint houses but is a good guy. I wonder why these are my only choices. Is this a false dichotomy?

What about the FACT that NOONE is not a hypocrite? All the character guys have flaws. All you gotta do is look closely and there is something in their life that conflicts with what they espouse. This is why character counts so much. Anyone can say what they think you want to hear. Only those who truly believe that their principles matter will stay the course and actually try to put those principles into practice. Of course noone is perfect but some people are trying to live by their principles and others are not. Those who are will fail, less often and enact what they set out to more often."

More Character by LAGuy:"Skip James replied to my "Character" post. Scroll down to see his comments. He feels, by the way, that character counts a lot. (Sorry Skip, last time I quoted you at length in the body of the post, but don't have time to now.)Actually, I agree with most of what Skip says. I just think he misses the point. Let's say you're a liberal in 1996, and think Clinton has less character than Dole. You may even think Clinton has sold out his party a few times. You will still vote for Clinton since he's far more likely to give you what you want than Dole.Which candidate had the most character in 2004? Was it Dennis Kucinich? Ralph Nader? Michael Badnarik? Some guy I never heard of? I don't know--it's never easy to tell. But who cares. If a guy says he'll fight for programs I hate, and fight against programs I like, then the more "character" he has, the more reason I have to vote against him. That's how little character matters. "

An Anonymous poster comes to my aid:"I think your analysis of character depends upon the shared value set you're talking about.Your point is a good one, that the more character a Democrat has, the likelier that I, a Republican, will vote against her--assuming I am worried about, say, raising taxes or gun control.But if I value sufficiently a number of other things that I think she values, such as our constitutional structure or any number of other things (let's say we both believe the senate filibuster should be maintained, even though I believe more than she does that it ought not to rise to the level of a minority veto), then it's exactly character that would cause me to vote for her.I will believe that she will do what's right as against her interest--a rough definition of character--while "my guy" who says the right things about issues I care about, but has no character, will abandon me on all counts (the specific Republican issue, e.g., guns, and the "shared value" issues) as soon as it benefits him to do so.This is the same thing Skip said, in a different way. Put another way, maybe you missed the point, not Skip."

LAGuy stays in the game: "I don't mean to argue this into the ground, but I think this still shows how little character matters.First, in the real world, it's almost impossible to gauge a candidate's character. For practical purposes, "character" is generally a sham issue, as you can see by the fact that most partisans only seem to attack the character of the other party. So many who claim it's important are merely using it as a pretext to vote for their side. (I'm not saying they're hypocritical, by the way--they honestly believe that people who make the arguments they believe in are of higher character than those who support programs that no decent person would honestly be associated with.)Second, even if you can separate out character, you're still going for the guy who supports your views most--that is simply 99% of what you're voting for.Third, most "character" deficits actually have nothing to do with politics, and aren't about selling you out, but are more about being a jerk in private life. These are just not things I believe in worrying about when I vote--as I said earlier, I don't believe in voting a guy in as a reward for being honorable (virtue is its own reward), but for being someone who'll properly represent me.Then, finally, there's the case where you have two candidates with the exact same views and you can actually tell which one has better "character." Even in this imaginary situation, you'd still often vote against character since 1) no candidate perfectly lines up with you so you'd want her to make compromises anyway and 2) someone who has so much character that she won't bend may not get anything passed in certain situations, and therefore you'll get nothing rather than the half a loaf a wheeler and dealer would get you."

Anonymous quips: "You're a lawyer, aren't you?"