By Ken Sidey.
It’s only a matter of time until another public figure ends up on the character assassin’s hit list. Whether a presidential candidate, a Supreme Court nominee, or a long-dead historical figure, some leader is going to have his private life hauled into public, examined, and found wanting.
Arkansas governor Bill Clinton became the target early in this year’s presidential race. From Super Bowl Sunday through Super Tuesday, the candidate struggled to put questions about his personal life behind him. First came tabloid tales of marital infidelity; then questions about Vietnam-era draft deferments. Titillating rumors of adultery prompted repeated fits of public hand wringing by the news media over how to handle the accusations, which probably produced more ratings points than points of light.
Nevertheless, the Clinton scandal did thrust a legitimate issue into public debate: Is the private life of a public official any of our business? Many think not.
In the midst of the Clinton affair, 70 percent of respondents to a Time magazine poll said information about private behavior—including extramarital affairs—should be kept from voters out of respect for the candidate’s privacy. Over 80 percent said the press pays too much attention to candidates’ personal lives.
But the poll results may have said more about attitudes toward the press than toward the candidates. Let us hope so. Because Americans should be concerned about their leaders’ personal conduct and beliefs, including their personal morality. Unlike countries where the power to rule is a result of one’s bloodline or control of the military, America is a nation built on trust. In our version of democracy, those who govern must win the people’s trust—trust in leaders’ judgment, wisdom, honesty, commitment, vision, and values—in short, what we call character.
America’s need for leadership from its chief executive requires more than position papers and political know-how. Those things are important, and all too often they are obscured by sound-bite journalism and poll-watching spin doctors. But the urge to dismiss character as a private affair is short-sighted. True leadership requires true character, something that does not turn on and off with the TV lights. What someone says when he thinks the microphone is off often reveals what he truly is.
There is a connection between private behavior and the ability to lead. Ever since Watergate, the mere dignity of the presidential office has not been sufficient to command support. If someone cheats on his wife, can he be trusted not to swindle his constituents? If he lies to his family, will he lie to Congress? History has enshrined leaders whose private sins did not detract from their public accomplishment, but it also warns of those whose vices dragged them into dishonor.
We are right to pay attention to our leaders’ character, but we should also recognize a statute of limitations. Years have passed since the Arkansas governor’s alleged affair. The Clintons say they have dealt with their problems and have emerged with their marriage intact. Unless new evidence surfaces that infidelity remains a problem for Clinton, à la Gary Hart, there is no reason to hold his rumored past against him.
Moral failures of the past are not the issue. What matters is what a leader has made of them for the present. We may not find a flawless candidate for any public office. But we should be looking for one with character that is “good enough” to command the respect and support of the people.
By Ken Sidey.
The Candidates’ Gods
Senator Paul Simon recalls one of the more peculiar questions he encountered during his 1988 campaign for the U.S. presidency: “If you were to come back to life as an animal, which animal would you like it to be?” The fact that such a query was posed by a reporter from a national daily newspaper later led the Democratic senator to bemoan the often-superficial quality of election-year journalism.
But while substantive, issue-oriented reporting tends to get elbowed aside by stories on the latest rumor, gaffe, or public-opinion poll, there is another crucial story that also gets overlooked: the spiritual constitution of the candidates. With rare exceptions, and despite the news media’s attempts to make sense of the “character issue,” the press shows little inclination to detail the religious values and beliefs of would-be Presidents.
It is true that religion has occasionally surfaced as a campaign issue in recent years. The press found much novelty in Jimmy Carter’s candid discussion of being “born again” and was especially interested in some of the more exotic aspects of Pat Robertson’s past ministry. Still, that kind of reporting falls well short of what is needed—a genuine attempt to explain how moral and religious values have contributed to the architecture of the candidates’ political philosophies.
There are many reasons the press shies away from examining the candidates’ religious values. In the minds of some editors and producers, religion is deemed irrelevant to the political process. Others feel that voters are not interested in the angle, or that personal religious views are outside the scope of legitimate journalistic inquiry.
Yet what could provide more insight into the candidates’ motivations, character, convictions, and priorities than a study of their core values? Voters are entitled to know—and ought to want to know—exactly what ultimate values presidential contenders would bring to the task of governing.
In fact, there are many religiously minded voters who do place importance on a candidate’s faith. Among the questions that thoughtful voters—as well as the press—might ask are these:
• Does a candidate possess or profess a meaningful religious faith? What kind of religious heritage does he or she have? What has been retained or discarded from it?
• Does a candidate maintain a church affiliation? At what level of involvement? Does he or she disagree with the church’s theology on any important points?
• How do a candidate’s religious views inform his or her political views? How has faith shaped his or her life and career? And most important, how might these religious values affect public-policy decisions?
This does not mean, of course, that candidates ought to profess a religious faith, much less a particular faith. And such a line of questioning raises other concerns. Are candidates willing to discuss their personal values and beliefs? If not, should questions be pressed? And how can these issues be covered without putting the news media in the position of judging the depth or sincerity of someone’s religious commitment?
Certainly, questions about the candidates’ religious beliefs should not dominate campaign debate—a remote possibility indeed. But they do deserve at least some serious consideration. For in spite of the risks, the potential payoff is considerable.
What could be more germane than the foundational moral and religious values of those who seek one of the most powerful offices in the world? Reporting and discussing those values would surely add a point of light to the national political dialogue in 1992. And maybe it would be even more fruitful than asking the candidates their preferred modes of reincarnation.
Guest editorial by David Baird, instructor of communication, Anderson University, Anderson, Indiana.
A Revolution That Won’T Die
We have heard myriad commentaries on why the Soviet Union died—bad economics, corrupt leadership, moral breakdown, spiritual atrophy. In hindsight, the fall of the Soviet system now seems to have been inevitable. Yet isn’t this true of all revolutions? Is it not inevitable that their world-changing energies eventually dissipate? Not just revolutions, but almost all grand human undertakings seem destined to deteriorate.
But then there is the church. Our daily frustrations and joys in the sanctuary can prevent us from asking an otherwise obvious question: Why does it continue?
Look again at the original Russian revolution. It had much going for it: an exciting eschatology of a just and generous society, the promise of an improved human nature, a new ethic of service, stories of inspiring heroes. But it rapidly turned into a bloated, corrupt bureaucracy, and after 70 years, its arteries were terminally clogged.
Jesus also began his revolution with promises of a new kingdom, a new ethic, a new hope. Certainly his message sounded less realistic. Building a new state is infinitely simpler than rebirthing souls. Yet, after 2,000 years, the Jesus revolution is going strong.
Even the short-term revolution of perestroika now seems a tilting at windmills. For a while, Mikhail Gorbachev looked like a savior. Creative, bold, courageous, he tried to alter the course of his country’s death plunge. But in the end, the tidal wave of history washed over him. We wonder, looking back: Was it humanly possible for one man to bring such radical change?
Then there is Jesus. He told his followers he would die, then be resurrected; that they would suffer, but the church would be triumphant. And that is what happened. How strange that we still look to Jesus’ disciples as the leaders of the church. Why did they not simply disappear into the encyclopedia of history?
Longevity certainly is not proof of authenticity. Other events, other religions, have managed to last for more than a few moments in the sun. Still, compared to the acts played out on the global stage, Jesus’ mission stands out as something to ponder.
By Michael G. Maudlin.
