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 so appreciate your points, profdlp. Thank you. I especially liked this last one. We could say much of this is common sense, but . . .
I like the term “guardrails” a lot. We don’t need brick walls, but creating some distance can be wise. Thanks, FST.
Nice try, btn. ;-)
I think you are misinformed, Bryan. The Sadducees were rebels, but they weren’t atheists. From the Jewish Virtual Library linked above:
The Sadducees
I didn’t make this point in the OP, but I felt compelled to celebrate Pence because I believe the appreciation of virtue has taken a big hit since Trump’s election. I especially enjoy celebrating politicians who are good people, doing good work and aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty. I know the argument is that we didn’t need that kind person to be elected president, but I fear this is a kind of selectivity regarding virtue: it’s important in some circumstances but not in others. So I’m grateful to those of you who see value in virtues.
Oh sorry, they believed in God but no afterlife. I stand corrected.
The Great Sanhedrin attacked and persecuted Christians. It is not a thing to be admired. One of their big heavy hitters was a man named Saul.
Re: 30
I think it’s fine for a man and a woman who are not married to, or dating, each other to have lunch together in a very public place as long as they are both single.
As I’ve said before, we all have people who did not represent us well, and that includes Christians. How might you have felt as these rebel rousers were attracting your own people with radical ideas, Bryan? Doesn’t context matter at all? I don’t really want to debate the bible–I don’t have the background, and I’m not willing to check everything a person says for its veracity. So let me just include this about the Sanhedrin from Sanhedrin.org–
The New Testament, according to gospel accounts, says that Jesus was brought before the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, presided over by high priest Joseph Caiaphas (a Sadducee). There is no record of such a trial in the Talmud and it is unknown in contemporary Rabbinic Literature. This ‘trial’ has not only been the source of unmeasurable trouble and persecution of the Jewish people, but it is also not logical from a Jewish point of view as there are many disagreements between the New Testament account and Rabbinic procedure.
Rabbinic Judaism rejects any connection with the trial of Jesus with or without a “sanhedrin”. Modern Judaism is called Rabbinic Judaism and claims descent from the Pharisees, a group at odds with the Sadducees. It is possible that the trial was as a Sadducean illegal court, or perhaps the details as we know them today are incomplete or inaccurate. Josephus (Ant. 20:9, etc) generally portrays the Sadducees as antagonistic to early Christianity, while the New Testament (John 3:2, Acts 5:34, etc) portrays Pharisees as being tolerant. The role of the Sadducees in trying and executing early Christians is explicitly referenced in Josephus. In 62 CE the Jewish priest and Sadducee, Ananus, convened the Sanhedrin in his house and condemned Yaakov [James], half-brother of Yeshua, who is then summarily executed.[Josephus, ibid]
All off topic, and if we want to either go offline and discuss, or go into a new thread, we can do so. I am not looking to derail, so I will decline to have the discussion here.
Thanks, Bryan. It wouldn’t be productive for me to go offline, simply for the reason I stated. I don’t know this information well enough from a Jewish perspective; if I did, I’d enjoy the conversation. Remember, a lot of this stuff is still new to me. Thank you for your understanding. If you decided to start some kind of thread, I’d be glad to follow it. I don’t know how you’d have time with your wildly successful post on the Main Feed! ;-)
Relevant to nothing, but I had a pastor who whenever he mentioned the Sadducees always added “Well, they were sad, you see.”
? Why do you think appreciation of virtue has taken a big hit since Trump’s election?
It seems to me that the hit to appreciation of virtue took a long time to develop and reached crescendo as Trump won the primaries. As near as I can tell, virtue seems to have made a dramatic recovery. Team Trump do not appear to be obstructing justice nor meddling in state affairs nor even indulging in the sort of casual character assassinations that were common among Team Obama.
In fact, virtue seems be in pretty good order among Team Trump; way, way better than the Nevers told us to expect, and better than many of us Reluctant Trumps expected, too.
Good for Mr. Pence; he is a stirling character, but I am unaware of any tabloid covers being made by Team Trump on account of their immoralities. Perhaps I am just ill-informed?
Of course there was no record. It was a highly irregular trial; they held it in the middle of the night in a rush to get the prisoner killed before the Passover festival Sabbath. Then, whatever record may have been kept was lost in the Jewish war of 69-70 AD, when the Temple burned.
I don’t even think it is fair to say that trial was “not logical” even with the benefit of hindsight.
At the time, Jesus was a direct spiritual threat to the authority of the high priest, and Jesus also appeared to have the potential to attract zealots who would in turn bring unwanted attention from the Romans. And, He was very bad for business, causing all sorts of trouble in the Temple courts by overturning the moneylenders’ tables. He was a rabble-rouser, attracting big crowds, and, if you did not believe He was truthful, then you thought He must be guilty of blasphemy.
….Or, a priest and his sister….This caused no end of behind-hands whispering, until she was introduced at Mass the following week. Tsk, tsk…
I agree.
I wasn’t referring to Team Trump. I was referring to Trump himself. There were the less-than-virtuous actions during the campaign, his history as a businessman, his attack on Cruz’s wife and father. The attacking tweets (tone can also point to virtue or the lack of it). I also think that virtue can be seen not through the lack of bad behavior, but through virtuous behavior or actions. I’m not saying Trump hasn’t been productive. But how do you see him demonstrating virtue through actions?
Just so you know what I mean by virtue:
a good moral quality in a person, or the general quality of goodness in a person
I would also again add that this is demonstrated through actions.
I wasn’t seeking virtue in a presidential candidate. We have done that too frequently. Most rulers and leaders tend to not be virtuous.
I sought effectiveness.
While there exist lines I wish not to cross, I chose someone who I think could be effective without crossing my very big lines.
I expect more of my moral leaders – like my priest.
If we ever find someone who is effective and virtuous, I shall kneel down and call Him Lord. (I’m being mildly hyperbolic here, but seeking perfection in politics seems like a quest for the Messiah)
I made a similar comment earlier in the OP, Stina; people were willing to set aside virtue for effectiveness. I don’t agree that most rulers and leaders tend not to be virtuous; I don’t know my rulers and leaders well enough to make that judgment. Like you, I think effectiveness is important, but I’ll hold out for virtue whenever possible. ;-)
So this is old news, except if you distressed at the way he tweets at miserable “journalists.”
I am unconcerned that this amounts to a new hit on virtue.
Case. In. Point!!!
I’ve been hoping for a chance to talk about this with someone.
I am happily married, but am flesh and subject to temptation. My next door neighbor, whom I admire, seems to admire me as well. (Nice to know I’ve still got a little of “it” left at 62!) In another lifetime, maybe, but not in this one . . .
At another neighbor’s backyard barbecue recently, my next door neighbor suggested that we share a meal together when our spouses were not around. I don’t know about him, but I’d had 3 glasses of wine by then and was not in a sensible frame of mine.
I said “I’m with Mike Pence. Not a good idea.” And we left it at that. I know this man adores his wife, and she has been ill for a very long time.
Thank you Mr. Pence for giving me the short version!
Good for you, Mole-Eye. How very sad that he was tempted, but you helped him to manage his decisions. At some point he may realize what a kind favor you did for him. I do.