I cannot imagine any political process less suited to finding out whether a candidate is either honest or trustworthy than the American way of running for the presidency in an era when "character" is defined by shrinking sound bites and endless video loops on blogs. I daresay that if any of us had been subjected to the continual and continuous scrutiny applied to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over the past year, our ratings for honesty and trustworthiness would also have plummeted. People always seem less honest in the glare of publicity, because nearly everyone has something to conceal--or something that he or she thinks must be concealed for fear of public censure.
As Montaigne observed, "There is no man so good that if he placed all his actions and thoughts under the scrutiny of the laws, he would not deserve hanging ten times in his life." Not to mention the scrutiny of YouTube.
Honesty and trustworthiness, by the way, don't always go together. Many of our greatest presidents--including Thomas Jefferson and Franklin D. Roosevelt--said one thing during their presidential campaigns and did quite another during their presidencies. Jefferson ran on a platform of limiting executive power and presided over one of the boldest executive actions in American history--the Louisiana Purchase. Roosevelt ran as something of a fiscal conservative in 1932 (which didn't fool his enemies in big business for a minute). I would say that both Jefferson and Roosevelt were trustworthy presidents--in the sense that they could be trusted to rise to the occasion and do the right thing for their country in response to both pedictable and unpredictable challenges--but personal honesty and moral consistency were certainly not their defining characteristics as men.
Many, arguably most, human beings are inconsistent, on both a moral and an emotional level. A man may display boundless courage under torture as a prisoner of war and conceal his ties to lobbyists during his political career. (One hopes that when the Democratic nominee is finally selected, John McCain will be subjected to the same scrutiny that Obama and Clinton have.) A woman may be an honest feminist and remain married to a man who has publicly humiliated her. Another man may speak of an America capable of moving beyond racism and retain emotional ties to a pastor whose views were shaped by a more harshly racist past.
It is time for Americans to grow up and stop pretending that we are electing a moral exemplar instead of a president. My guess is that anyone who is willing to endure what all American presidential candidates must endure is operating at a level of egotism and ambition beyond the imagination of most voters. That is why they are candidates for office and we are not. The vital question about any candidate is whether all of that egotism and ambition is directed toward worthy or unworthy goals. If you believe that no candidate shown to be dishonest in one area of his or her life, or driven by vaulting ambition, can ever cherish or work toward worthy goals, then just stay home from the polls and contemplate the perfection you expect in the next world. You won't find what you're looking for in a candidate here on earth.
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
