What A Character!

Political campaigns focus on what the candidates think about the issues of the day. This is understandable, but not useful. Analyzing the candidates’ views of present problems is not the most instructive way to evaluate their future competence to serve.

Issues are transient. They come and go. Unforeseen things pop up during a candidate’s term. When George W. was running, who was thinking about Osama Bin Laden? Before Billy C. was elected, no reporters asked him about Bosnian genocide. When Orange Julius (“O.J.”) first ran, only his family and friends had ever heard of George Floyd.

We can’t possibly know what future crises our next President will have to handle. So, what should be the measure of a future officeholder? It’s character.

What kind of a person will be the one who must decide whether to go to war? What kind of a person will be sitting alone in a room with leaders of other nations? Will that person say the right thing? This applies to all elections, but it applies in spades to the one we’re up against now – Kamala Harris vs. O.J.

I could start by evaluating Harris’s character, but it’s not necessary. Al Capone’s character would be better than O.J.’s. The evidence of O.J.’s massive character flaws are as numerous as the people he has screwed.  

There is a definition of character that is used in New Jersey gaming law (an area in which I used to make my living). It says that character is “that thread of intention, good or bad, that weaves its way through the course of a person’s lifetime.” What have been O.J.’s intentions throughout his life – nothing but self-aggrandizement. And his character compels him to lie about anything that will help him achieve that goal. As Jonathan Swift once said, “A lie does not consist of the indirect position of words, but in the desire and intention, by false speaking, to deceive and injure your neighbor.” 

Oh, what character that O.J. has! According to the New York Times, here are just some examples of what those who know him say:

John Kelly, his former Secretary of Homeland Security and Chief of Staff says he’s, “A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution and the rule of law.” 

Mick Mulvaney, his former Acting Chief of Staff offers this assessment, “I think he’s a terrible human being.”

And, from his good buddy, Kim Jong-un, “Far from making remarks of any persuasive power that can be viewed to be helpful to defusing tension, he made unprecedented rude nonsense one has never heard from any of his predecessors. A frightened dog barks louder.”

Kamala is new to us. In addition to not knowing what breathtakingly perilous issues she may have to confront if elected, we also can’t even be certain about her capability to handle them. But it is certainly worth taking the chance that her character will push her in the right direction because it is clear that the character of her opponent pushes him in the wrong one.