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.
Mike Pence: A Man of Virtue
The word “virtue” has become besmirched by its inclusion in the term, “virtue signaling,” a term used to discredit one’s practice of virtue, when a critic doubts the virtuous person’s sincerity. In creating this term, however, I think it has made some of us skeptical (in these chaotic times) of any person’s sincerity and credibility as a notable and admirable human being.
That’s why I was glad to see Mollie Hemingway’s Federalist Daily Blog post on the results of a poll taken by the New York Times/Morning Consult poll that surveyed the public’s reactions to Mike Pence’s position not to dine alone or drink alone with women, other than his wife. I was delighted to learn that both men and women respected his decision, in spite of the outrage by the mainstream media. In an age where tradition is disparaged, I thought about all the ways that Mike Pence represented conventional beliefs and values, and how people sometimes disparage those who emulate honor, respect and virtue.
In one way, it would be easy to try to damage Mike Pence’s reputation; he is, after all, a politician. Some in the media say that he is already planning a 2020 presidential run; that he has made mistakes; that he should stand up to Trump more often. These comments amuse me, since there is no way to prove their veracity, and they demonstrate Pence’s humanity to me. There is nothing he has done that I’m aware of that would damage his credibility as a decent human being. Any person who can be seen as a person of character, in spite of all the political stereotypes, is worthy of our appreciation.
What are some of the attributes I admire about Mike Pence? He is loyal, maybe to a fault. He is consistent in stating his views and values. He is a religious man and devoted to his wife and family. And he has an unwavering commitment to this country.
In terms of his statement about not meeting with women alone, he made a point that is worthy of note, as the media attacked him for being a misogynist: his decision not to meet alone with women demonstrated his sincerity, respect and honoring of his relationship with his wife. Men and women are different and we are by nature attracted to each other; that we are sometimes fragile and vulnerable human beings when we are together. And that out of respect to those with whom we meet, and toward those whom we love, we should not put ourselves in the position of disrespecting anyone. His decision was not a reflection on his wife, or on the women with whom he worked, but on everyone’s susceptibility to seek out another when we might be tempted to betray our commitments. That takes courage and a dedication to living an admirable life.
How do you relate to these kinds of decisions? Are they straightforward choices for you? Have you discussed them with a significant other? Are you both on the same page?
And have you thought of other admirable people, including politicians who “signal virtue” in the best possible way? I think Joe Lieberman was one person. Ben Sasse is another. I’d suggest that a virtuous person doesn’t necessarily share your politics, but stands for qualities that you value.
What do you think?
Published in Culture
I’ve admired Mr. Pence for some time; he’s principled without being pompous or persnickety.
I’m not a fan of overt religiosity in politicians, but with Pence that’s pretty much of an afterthought. He has demonstrated a history of being capable of wearing more than one hat, as a member of the House Leadership and as a Governor (the appropriate training grounds for a President) and he is a soft-spoken and decent figure on the national stage. A sort of Anti-Trump in many ways.
If he were to ascend to the Presidency he would be in some regards an improvement, but the things that make him appealing might also make for a poor candidacy given how self-effacing he seems to be.
I agree, Majestyk; it’s hard to tell how he’d be as President. But I think he’s in a great position to balance out (if only in a small way) the bombast and unpredictability of Trump. And I love having someone on the national scene who sets an example to America and to the world of principle and level-headedness.
I can’t think of a more admirable politician than Tom Coburn.
Good choice! You remind me of Tom Cotton, too! Love ’em both!
I certainly respect Pence’s decision, but it strikes me odd. What is the fear here, that he will give into temptation and get involved in an affair? There are plenty of religious men who meet with women and do not carry on affairs. I go to lunch with work mates, and some of them are women. I’ve never had an affair.
I can’t help separate that Pence is a politician, albeit one I support and admire, and as a politician he is subject to fake rumors and innuendos. Is his fear not about a temptation but about preventing rumor mongering? I can’t say I quite understand why he has such a rule.
I thought the term “virtue signaling” was applied to people talking about how virtuously they think, rather than to actual practice of virtue. Have I been misinterpreting the term?
Great questions, Manny. One may not have a physical affair, but a person can have an affair of the heart. The relationship may not go much farther than that, but a person is allowing for an emotional commitment that belongs to a significant other. I’ve had male friends and male clients with whom I had lunch. Looking back, they were always men I respected, and they respected me. But there was often a chemistry. If at some point my marriage had been rocky, I don’t know that I would have had an physical affair, but I don’t know about an affair of the heart.
Pence’s decision may also have been about appearances. But I can assure you that there are religious men, Orthodox Jewish men for example, that might make the same decision. It allows friends and acquaintances to be clear about boundaries and expectations and clarifies that it must be platonic. Just some thoughts. I don’t know if I can impose on some of the religious Jews to chime in. @iwe or @jamesgawron ?
I believe the rule was/is intended to eliminate “fuel” for rumor and innuendo (what people make up out of whole cloth is often quite bad enough).
. . . that’s right, TG. And people judge them by saying they are virtue signaling, challenging their sincerity.
Because he knows the media is alert for scandal-mongering; and he values his marriage and loves his wife. I assume she is aware of this practice, agrees with it/stipulated it herself/requires something similar of herself. This is not for us to ‘understand’/approve/disprove of, actually.
I am guessing it is as much about being accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault as it is about his marriage.
Given the litigious environment we live in, and how excited prosecutors are to go after a celebrity so that they can get some publicity for themselves, if I were a public figure of any kind–even locally such as a teacher or a minister–I would have the same rule.
I’ve always thought this was the only way to operate in your public life, but this story about the number of priests falsely accused during the priest scandals a decade ago cemented that opinion for me.
Billy Graham lived by the same rule. It not only removed temptation for a very public figure, but it also defused the rumor mill.
I’ve had business dinners and casual meals with female friends and colleagues with no problems. But I’m not a public figure under constant (negative) scrutiny.
Pence made this decision long ago, apparently – mostly out of respect for his wife and family to avoid even the appearance of anything questionable. He isn’t insisting everybody else do it. Considering just how eager the Leftist media is to smear any Conservative these days, it seems like a wise decision to me.
That is a great response. Thanks Susan.
Edit (on second thought): Though can’t one have an affair of the heart while with one’s wife along side?
I agree with the comment about rumor mongering. Even more, Pence’s stance sets a clear boundary that protects himself, his wife, and others from what seem to be age-old human foibles and propensities.
There is nothing new under the sun, and Pence is a wise man to have habits that acknowledge that.
Yes. Not ideal, though, is it?
Agree.
I don’t think he will be running for POTUS in 2018. He might in 2020. ;-)
Thank you, Robert. Duh.
This isn’t just some meaningless term. Those who “coined” it are trying to convey something that it seems to be lost on a good deal of people offended by the term.
The pharisees and Saducees are the best example of “virtue signaling”, who Christ called out as a brood of vipers. They were men who would accuse someone of breaking the sabbath just because they helped a man get his cart wheel out of the mud. They would pray loudly on street corners and show little concern for those around them.
Their religious piety constantly on display produced rotten fruit… showing them to be rotten no matter how “good” they were.
Mike Pence is humble and virtuous. He is not signaling anything.
They are straightforward to me. I have not discussed it with my SO. I do practice this in some way myself, as my own choice. I am very mindful of boundaries and dislike crossing them.
As to my last post, not signaling, but I admired Buchanan because I thought his choices to stand for his beliefs at the cost of his political career to be admirable.
I think Lieberman was one such.
I seem to have touched a nerve, Stina. “Virtue signaling” is not a meaningless term. It is a vindictive and arrogant one, IMHO. So we agree. Regarding your take on the Pharisees and Sadducees, I am not a Biblical scholar, but I do find myself uneasy about the angry way you described them. There is more information from a Jewish perspective here. These were very difficult times for the Jews. People felt threatened from all sides, and some of them behaved in inappropriate ways. Little is known about the Sadducees in particular. I guess you might be able to identify times in Christian history when well-intentioned people behaved badly, and I wonder if you might treat them more kindly.
I find Christ’s example sufficient.
While I recognize I am not perfect and my instincts can be wrong, I won’t be flippant with the term.
But it serves its place. And I am not kind to people who would lead God’s children astray, teaching a false gospel and bearing false witness to God’s testaments, both new and old.
A few thoughts:
In an interesting sermon series called “Guardrails” by Andy Stanley, he makes the valuable point that we should put up guardrails before the edge of the problem. A guardrail right at the precipice may not be sufficient.
Susan, is this the first in a 10 part series about why Pence should take Trump’s place as President?
In the New Testament, it is these groups (and the Sadducees were atheists for crying out loud, so why defend them), who looked to take Christ down and led the people to call for his death. They did not like the threat to their power.
But its important that these be personal choices and not ones dictated by outside spectators.
Otherwise, you run the risk of lack of conviction producing a legalistic spirit.
I remember only once in my work life dining alone with a male co-worker (there were many occasions where we dined in a group). It was certainly no threat to my marriage and I’m not a public figure at risk of causing scandal, but it still felt awkward and somehow not quite right. Even at this late stage in my life, I would demur. But, I don’t think it is particularly virtuous of me. As you say, Susan, it’s convention — or, it used to be. Couples who dine alone (even in public places) are married or dating.