Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Morality and Politics: Do You Try to Make Moral Choices?
I am cringing while I write this post, in a way I never have. I don’t trust that we can have a civil conversation about this topic; that I may open old wounds and create havoc. I’ve asked myself over and over whether I can trust all of you to be decent, moral human beings. I think I can trust you; I hope I can because this question has been nagging at me for months, and I need your help to resolve it. Let’s make this an opportunity to do it together, in our search for truth and understanding. That means putting aside the need to win or be right; I don’t think either of those efforts will be successful.
All that said, I have been struggling with my own morality related to politics.
First, if you know anything about me at all, you know I strive to be a moral person. I’m not bragging about it; I feel compelled to do it. Most of the time, I think I do that with ease; I have clarity about my values in relation to how I act, what I do and how I treat others.
I bring up these questions as I’m nearly finished with a book by Charles Lane, called Freedom’s Detective , a book about Hiram Whitley, the man who began the Secret Service. That organization was originally started to find counterfeiters but eventually was key in rounding up the Ku Klux Klan during and following Reconstruction. It was a fascinating story, but I was especially struck by Whitley himself. He was an excellent manager and strategist, but he was also a liar, thief, finagler, and also showed many other disreputable attributes. Eventually, he was fired, but he did great things under the Grant administration. He was both celebrated and condemned in his time. He made me think of Donald Trump.
That led me to the issue that has been bothering me the last couple of years, particularly after 2016: how to frame and comprehend and hold true to my own morality, particularly in relation to politics. Part of my problem is that I hold people I connect with or feel connected to, to a high moral standard. If you want to be my friend, you have to be a decent person. Figuring out what a “decent person” is might be a key part of this discussion.
I also believe that most of you who participate on Ricochet are moral and principled people. I can’t think of a better place to initiate this discussion. So here it is:
In terms of morality, Donald Trump is a mixed bag. In fact, I guess I could say that most of us are. Some of you believe that G-d will be the final Judge of whether we pass muster on the morality measure.
I wonder how you weigh the question of who to support in any area of life when the person is far from the perfect person. Regarding Trump–
-I realize that many of you might have decided that you would vote for just about anyone who could “clean out the swamp,” no matter their moral attributes or limitations.
-You may have decided that morality was not an issue, that the country was in such dire straits that the questions about the morality of the person you voted for were irrelevant.
-Since we are all a mixed bag, you may have decided that Trump was sufficiently moral, given how he treated his family, how he cared for our veterans, how he loved America and wanted to help us, and the other moral traits he showed.
Please do not use this post as an opportunity to defend Trump or yourself, or to bash others who do not. And for those of you who don’t like Trump, this post may not be for you.
This post is primarily about the moral choices you make regarding politics and politicians, not necessarily attacking or defending particular officeholders or candidates. As a point of information, I didn’t vote for Trump or support him before the election (and I say that without judgment of those who did); I made judgments about his character and reputation. But the simple fact that he is president means for me that I will support him when he does good things, and criticize him when I think he doesn’t. On balance, I think he has done a good job.
To me, supporting him is a moral choice, because the country elected him.
In that vein, what did you think of Hiram Whitley mentioned earlier? What role, if any, does your morality play in your political choices? Does morality play a different role in the policies you support versus the persons for whom you vote?
Published in Culture
All things equal, sure, I hope to reward the person with a better moral reputation. But all things are seldom equal.
If I burst a pipe and my kitchen is overflowing uncontrollably, and the plumber who is a saint will be three hours but the plumber who is a lecherous, sinful lout can be there in 15 min, I take the lech.
That isn’t to say I would go with a plumber who has cheated me or others I know, or who is incompetent, or is undependable. Those aren’t exactly moral failings, but they affect the job at hand. And the job at hand is the top consideration.
If the guy can get the job done and the failings I perceive in his moral fiber don’t affect that ability, barring the saint being available I say, get the job done.
After all, which of us is qualified to judge? (not me.) If we want to wait around for an stainless soul to do every dirty job, we will wait a long time. (Politics is a very dirty job).
Andrew Klavan put it best. I paraphrase slightly, “The biggest moral decision is whether I get to be free or not. Donald Trump’s many flaws are secondary to the question of freedom.” Trump lets gays and Christians live free lives in equal measure. His sexual predilections aren’t as important as what he does to the country. I will leave G-d’s judgement to G-d.
I consider a vote a moral choice, but the personal morals of the candidate are a ways down the list of considerations, behind the effects of candidate’s stated policies and known track record on republican governance, liberty and specific impacts on my own situation. Given that I’m a constitutional conservative, the chances of having two (or more) reasonably electable candidates that I find so balanced on these considerations that personal morals are the deciding factor are remote, so much that I can’t recall making a choice on that basis in 45 or so years of elections. And I don’t regard politicians are my moral agent, they are hirelings in whose choice I have a small fraction of the decision power.
As a moral choice, a vote is somewhere around a nerf bat for effectiveness. In contrast, I find decisions made with the dollar – the ‘second vote’ – much more scalpel-like and worthy of consideration. Contributions are nearly 100% moral choice. I’m putting money earned with my own life and labor at the service of something or someone else that is entirely optional – with a little wiggle room for helping neighbor’s kids go to camp and the sort.
Buying decisions are somewhere in between. There’s also a factor of utility – the old ‘cutting off your nose to spite your face’ – as well as any moral valence I attach to the vendor. But those vendors who indulge in moral preening at the expense of liberty are going to find my choices lead me elsewhere, even if it involves some inconvenience or expense.
33 comments and no Gary Robbins. He must be suspended.
Over at Bulwark they have just broken news that there are more naked pictures of Melania, and Trump is a despicable grifter who taints our Presidency and world-standing and makes me look personally immoral since I am a Reagan Republican. Bill Weld, Hogan, Shultz or Klink ( even though he’s a nazi) are better candidates and I urge everyone to donate as I have to whoever can beat this horrible menace to my self-esteem as a Republican.
– Guess Who
( there, feel better?)
This was my thought as well. There is personal morality and civic morality. Civic morality has to do with the structure in which individual moral beings operate. That structure has to strike the right balance between individuals whose personal morality (or lack thereof) brings them into conflict — or would but for the structure imposed by civic morality. Our constitution is the embodiment of our civic morality: citizen control of government, unalienable human rights, equal justice under the law. Politicians who best promote that civic morality get my vote.
@franco, @skipsul, and @phenry— all three of you are people I respect. Actually there isn’t a person who’s commented that hasn’t impressed me and taught me a whole lot. But you three guys in particular have clarified a way to look at a candidate–I won’t re-state your comments but you had a great deal in common. You’ve given me a whole lot to chew on. I may say more later. Thank you so much!
I do have one thing to say (now that I said I don’t have anything to add to my previous comment) that I’m realizing that I judge people by what they do, what they accomplish (however limited that might be) and their being a benefit to others. I do use my morality to evaluate them, but that, in terms of political service, is what matters. I’m understanding that more and more. It’s hard, because I want people to behave well, and I especially cringe when I believe they get in their own way. But I realize that I’m the one who is cringing, not Trump, and he is still getting things done. So then I have to say what, or who, is the problem here?!
Thanks for cracking me up, @franco! Those who criticize Trump are looking sillier all the time.
I had a hard time coming to a decision on this. I went over several possible “Respectable Positions on Trump” in a post around that time. I thought Trump was so bad that supporting him could only be justified as a resistance against the greater evil of Hillary Clinton, but I wasn’t sure it was ok to support a lesser evil that bad.
In the end I hit on the difference between voting in a swing state and voting in a red state. I was from Texas, so my vote wasn’t going to be a decisive one; so I didn’t vote for Trump.
I expect to next time. His use of Twitter is somewhere between unsavory and barbaric. His judicial appointments and deregulation have been magnificent, magnificent, magnificent.
The trick is figuring out whether they will do what they promise, isn’t it, St. A? After the fact, you and I have come around and he was elected without us. But we can pitch in this time!
I was in Illinois, a blue state. All I could do was cancel out my grandfather’s vote. He’s been a loyal Democrat ever since he died in 1986.
We all fall short and are works in progress. We all have family members, friends, neighbors, and politicians that fall short and are works in progress – we love them anyway. As a Christian, I can’t think any other way – as hard as it is. You have to look at “the fruit” – what is being produced – flawed, rotting or fruitful? You said your post is about politics. I think the Trump over the last 2 plus years has shown fruit that is the opposite of what was/is acceptable to the Democrats. He stands up for the unborn, the frail, Israel, the children in Syria, the workplace (including opportunity for all – irregardless of race or gender), he has brought a refreshing reality to many gov. across the world who were used to the statue quo – burying their heads. The Bible says not even the angels can judge – that is for God alone. I think as one Ricochet member described Trump as a flawed vessel, he with all his flaws, is trying – to promote what is good, right and true. Aside from that, let God do the rest (like that flawed family member or irritating neighbor) – love the person and be forgiving.
I’m also here in Texas and also didn’t vote for Trump, due primarily on his at that point 38-year history of modifying positions based on where he seemingly thought the majority of the public was coming down on an issue, depending on where the swing voters were. That’s why my most pleasant surprise so far has been the past four months, since the swing voters in the 2018 midterms tacked left and Trump has not followed (though given the left’s desire to grind him into dust, he might not have had much of a choice but to follow Reagan in 1983 and “Stay the Course” after his ’82 midterm drubbing).
The current situation seems to be one where the perfect is the enemy of the good, and you can’t replace something with nothing. Continuing to virtue signal based on who Trump is now comes up against his record in office, versus in the current two-party system and what the binary alternative offered up by the Democrats is going to be. You can already see a lot of people out there in #NeverTrump world trying to convince themselves that Uncle Joe or Mayor Pete won’t be that bad. But they could get Bernie, Liz or Kamala next fall.
Depends on the situation. I just rewatched the classic “Devil’s Brigade” with William Holden and in the scene where the brigade is named so, Holden’s character is also said to be the Devil. When you’re at war you need to be an unrelenting bastard … or you’ll lose.
But, I don’t normally expect a national level leader to be held to a high moral standard because there’s a significant paradigm shift from the individual to the national. Who liked Carter at the end of his presidency? Not very many.
Some years ago I was in the recovery room at the blood bank having a discussion with another donor. She brought up Anton Scalia’s biography and started enumerating his evils. When she was done I just responded “It’s almost as if he’s human, eh?”
The type of indiscretion matters, some have more gravitas than others, and some can become serious personal liabilities but ultimately that’s between you and “God” … if you’re going to represent me in the big bad world just don’t be a shlemiel.
I only cringe when he says something that could have been phrased in a more diplomatic way and offended fewer people. Since I’ve met and known socially many politicians over the years, believe me when I tell you not one of them would qualify for sainthood. As time goes on and we learn more about the private lives of past presidents, it’s clear that none of them would qualify for sainthood either. What makes Trump stand out is that his life has been an open book from day one as he never expected to keep his private life secret in hopes of one day becoming president.
I like the show Blue Bloods, but if I ever have to listen to the Atty character say fruitofthepoisonedtree again I think I’ll lose it. As a legal principle I get it because law has to be applied equally and that requires a meticulousness that works in a sealed courtroom environment.
Real life is anything but laboratory conditions. It’s messy, we’re messy.
I agree, but there are so few facts to be had that we pretty much have to go with intuition.
It is also claimed that Constantine marked an enormous and lasting temptation and destruction of the true Church, as the incentives all pointed to collaborating with Caesar in the false name of God. From Ezekiel 22:
Perhaps the only relevant ‘sins’ are sins against our county; we reasonably avoid marrying adulterers and should similarly avoid electing traitors.
Exactly so. As we are to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, so we should expect of Caesar a set of virtues in governing. So, does my elected representative earnestly follow through, however inconvenient to him or her, on campaign promises and the party platform? Are the promises and the platform morally superior to that of the other major (so only real other possible winner) party or candidate? If not a clearly moral issue, is one party/candidate showing results in office that tend towards restoring constitutional order and starting to restore a populace that is imbued with basic respect for, and knowledge of, our constitutional system?
Insincerity, even duplicity, demonstrated through decades of party and personal political action and inaction, has to operate as a heavy discount on the moral weight of a party or candidate’s election positions. Yes, I’m looking at you, Paul “Lyin” Ryan!
I am uninterested in what I take as, based on decades of observation, fraudulent concerns about morality outside of the conduct of office.
In politics, I find it is almost a matter of choosing between the more and the lesser of two evils. Because of its very nature, it seems that very few career politicians escape the lure of personal gain, either in direct monetary benefits or career achievement/tenure.
In the context of a presidency his tweets look bad.
In the context of tweets qua tweets, they are masterful.
Edit: Removed by better angel.
Hey, can you give the rest of his contact information? We could use his help.
And despite this there’s still very little dirt on this wealthy son of privilege approaching 80 years of age. Would that all politicians be as clean as Trump. Not a saint by any measure (except maybe on Reddit’s “The Donald”) but a reasonably decent man.
Personal.
Helping the poor becomes political when it’s outsourced to government, thus impersonal. It also makes people participate (via taxes) who otherwise wouldn’t. Out another way, forced charity really isn’t charity. Even donating to charitable organizations isn’t as “hands on” as The Big Guy would like, but it’s certainly better than government because of its voluntary nature . . .
I’d be careful there. That has been used to justify some rather horrific things against both Catholics and Orthodox.
My father, of blessed memory, always told me this: “You can tell a person’s true character by how that person feels about Jews.” Based on this moral criterion, Trump is a saint. In this vein, actions are, of course, more important than feelings or words. Nixon’s tapes are full of anti-Semitic gibes but when Israel was in danger during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, he did not hesitate to re-supply the IDF.
I’m troubled by Klavan’s focus on freedom, though I am an admirer of his work. I think that liberty is an important value, but it is often in tension with other important values.
I’ve heard Klavan say things like: “I just want you to be free.” I don’t just want you (or me) to be free. I want you (and me) to be virtuous, and successful, and have a meaningful life and a valued place in our society.
Obviously, Klavan’s statement will appeal somewhat more to libertarians and somewhat less to conservatives.