Private Character, Public Office
Expired- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards’s admitted affair reintroduces a recurring pattern—political leaders trying to recoup their public reputations in the wake of poor personal choices.
Edwards, like several who’ve gone before him, lied repeatedly before owning his indiscretions. Now he’s making the familiar round of talk shows and news outlets purportedly “coming clean” with a series of mea culpas.
New Jersey Governor James E. McGreevy and New York Governor Eliot Spitzer both lost their public office because of sexual scandals. The Reverend Jesse Jackson lost some of his moral credibility as a social activist because he fathered a child in an extra-marital affair. President John F. Kennedy didn’t live to see his extra-marital White House affairs exposed to the public, but his legacy suffers because of them.
When it comes to questionable character in a leader President Bill Clinton is Exhibit A. During his second term he endured the nation’s second presidential impeachment trial, racked up millions in legal fees, and was disbarred because he lied under oath—which all started in the scandal of his “inappropriate relationship” with a White House intern.
President Clinton’s hubris in conducting an affair in or near the Oval Office, ambiguous definitions of words like “sexual relations” and “is,” glib lies to the American people, and squandered political leadership opportunities presented us once again with a leadership question.
Do a leader’s private choices inevitably affect his or her public actions? Politicians, pundits, and professors debated whether it’s possible for a leader to act with such mind-bogglingly questionable judgment privately while acting with astute judgment publicly.
In the United States historically, private character and public action were considered inextricably linked. Yet at the time of President Clinton’s impeachment, some 70% of the American people did not want Congress to pursue the matter. So the Senate’s vote during the trial fell short of conviction and President Clinton was spared the ignominy of being bounced from office.
Whatever your thoughts on the outcome of this trial, we can say that the American people’s inclination to separate private from public character is a choice with consequences not yet fully understood. The lasting ripple effects of the Clinton affair only history will tell. But it’s neither a partisan comment nor a cheap shot to say that the impact of one leader’s poor character choices can greatly and negatively affect a nation—or an organization.
But what kind of poor character choices should cause us to disqualify a person from leadership? Where do you draw the line? According to the present American mindset private sexual immorality is apparently O.K., but what private character choices are not O.K. for a leader or potential leader, particularly in public office?
President Clinton, for example, was not a traitorous man. He was not an autocrat or a murderer. He did good things in office, even as a sexually immoral man. He is charismatic and many people like him. Some people seem to like him because he’s a rogue. So his “not-so-bad-just-like-the-rest-of-us” immorality tends to be written off with softer words like antics or peccadilloes. But still, the problem remains. Which character fault lines in a leader’s heart should give us pause? What about a candidate for office who’s known or shown to be a congenital liar?
What about a leadership candidate who admits to illegal behavior but explains it away as one of his or her “youthful indiscretions”? Allow me to say it again, where do you draw the line? Should private morality be ignored? How does a political leader (or you or me) separate his or her moral being into private and public personas?
From a Christian perspective, the short answer is “You can’t.” Yet that’s what our culture now seems to believe. You see? It’s tough. We’re all sinners. Any of us who are leaders or leader-aspirants have already established a record of wrong choices in our lives. We’re human. We were born in sin and we’ve committed varying levels of wrong-doing ever since.
We know it’s impossible to select perfect leaders because there are no perfect people, so we work with a sliding scale. We place character choices (often subconsciously) on a continuum running from Acceptable-to-Unacceptable. Where a character choice sits on that continuum varies based upon our cultural values at a given point in time. Before President Ronald Reagan, for example, candidates for the highest office in the land were not taken seriously if they’d ever been divorced. Now it doesn’t seem to matter.
We know that good and bad behavior exists and, consequently, we know that good and bad leaders exist. But as a culture we sometimes struggle with where one fades into the other.
How do you recognize bad leaders? They lack integrity. They allow fundamental flaws to fester in their character. These flaws are not the vague “He’s struggling with his demons” you read about in the press, as if something or someone else is responsible. No, these flaws are sinful attitudes and behaviors sprung from the leader’s own hearts.
There’s generally a pattern of wrong moral choices in a bad leader’s character. Bad leaders don’t tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Bad leaders live for their own self-aggrandizement. They take from rather than grow with the people. Bad leaders’ lives and leadership are a running story of ethical lapses and duplicity.
Bad leaders always exact a price from their nation or their organization. They can destroy in a matter of months what took years to build.
In the Old Testament book of Proverbs, God reminds us that, “when the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan” (29:2). Good leaders and good leadership are a blessing. Bad leaders and bad leadership are a curse.
Long after President Gerald R. Ford’s administration, former Senator Alan Simpson summarized well the importance of a leader’s character when he introduced Mr. Ford at Harvard University. Simpson said, “If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.”
The continuum of Acceptable to Unacceptable character choices we tolerate in our leaders is a picture of how Americans think about values, character, and leadership. It’s not necessarily a trustworthy guide for how God thinks about these matters. Nor should it be our standard because in Christian terms good enough is not good enough.
God’s moral standard for leadership is high. He said, “from everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” (Luke 12:48).
© Dr. Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2008
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Politics and character make uncomfortable suite mates these days. It seems like the days of gentlemen (or women) politicians—people who could debate like political warriors during the day and then enjoy a dinner together in the evening—are long gone. Many politicians today have failed to understand the difference between disagreement and dislike, or worse, loathing. Now it’s not enough to critique someone’s point of view on the merits. One must attack the other person’s character, motives, and person. Political adversaries are now enemies. Partnership has given way to partisanship; principle has given way to power.
The passing of President Gerald R. Ford this past week gives us occasion to think about politics and character, for he represented the best of both. Or rather, he was a man who lived out his well grounded character in his politics. He didn’t become something or someone else to curry political favor, and he didn’t check opinion polls or focus groups to figure out what his point of view should be. He was, in a word, a man of integrity. Now he’s being fondly—and accurately and fairly—remembered not just for what he did but even more for the way he did it.
President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill were in some measure men of the old school too. They represented different sides of “the aisle” and opposite ends of the political spectrum, but at the end of the day, they were American leaders who liked one-upping each other telling Irish American jokes. Can you imagine President George W. Bush and Speaker Nancy Pelosi enjoying each others’ company at day’s end? Even more, can you imagine Republicans and Democrats on the Hill doing anything together other than perhaps paying respects to President Ford lying in state in the Capitol?
I’m not suggesting no political leaders in Washington, D.C. demonstrate appropriate character. Far from it. There are men and women on both sides of the aisle who are American patriots doing their best with the talent and understanding given to them. But the overall tone, tenor, or culture of Washington, D.C. politics today is something else again. Principled cooperation isn’t much in evidence.
I’ve said before, “God give us more Jerry Fords.” We need men and women, both Republican and Democrat, who are willing to move to the center, give some in order to get some, go along to get along, build a team, and above all, work together in the best interests of the American people. That’s easier said than done, but I think the American people are listening and looking for the next Gerald R. Ford, someone with political courage grounded in character who stands tall without skeletons in the closet.
Politicians without character are a menace to society. Politics without character demeans society. Politics and character are well worth pondering. Our children’s future depends upon it.
© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2007
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Rev. Ted Haggard, recently pastor of the 14,000 member New Life Church of Colorado Springs, Colorado and President of the National Association of Evangelicals is another casualty in Christian leadership. He resigned his pastorate November 5th because, in his words, he was guilty of “sexual immorality.” Haggard took this action after publicly denying at least three times the accusations of an alleged lover who said Haggard had regular gay sex with him and had purchased illegal drugs. He has now owned his behaviors and is suffering very public consequences.
We should learn several things from this public fall from grace. One, “Don’t rush to judgment.” Haggard’s multiple denials and later confession should remind us that it takes time to sort out what really happened in any human drama. Two, “Check your facts.” Those who staunchly defended him without examining evidence were later embarrassed. Three, “We’re all human.” What Haggard did was immoral, deceitful, and, if he purchased narcotics, illegal. But no one is above temptation and no one is without sin, and “There but for the grace of God go I.”
Four, “Pray for leaders.” God commands us to pray for those in authority over us no matter what role they play, political, commercial, or religious. Five, “A fall from grace disqualifies one from leadership, not from life.” Haggard resigned his leadership positions, and he says he asked God and his family for forgiveness. He also asked us for forgiveness. If he is sincere he should be forgiven. What he did was sin but not the impardonable sin.
Haggards failure is monumental. It likely means he will never minister in a similar capacity ever again. Yet God is a God of second chances. Just ask the biblical Samson—and some day, ask Ted Haggard. And for that matter, ask any follower of Christ.
© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2006
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.
- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Mel Gibson’s recent trials—DUI, resisting arrest, and a belligerent drunken anti-Semitic tirade—is a sad reminder for the Christian community.
I don’t know the condition of Mr. Gibson’s heart. Is he a believer in Christ? Does he really harbor hateful anti-Semitic views? Is he an actor in real life, i.e. a hypocrite, as well as in film? I don’t know. But I do know this: the Christian community should learn to walk carefully around “celebrity Christians.”
When Mel Gibson produced The Passion of the Christ he became something of a new-found celebrity darling of many in the Christian community. Church groups, schools, and other Christian leaders vied for Gibson’s time and attention or for the ultimate—a photo op. For Gibson and his film company this was a boon to marketing. These new relationships, vigorous press attention, and a reasonably good quality film helped make The Passion of the Christ a blockbuster, despite official Hollywood’s distance and even disdain.
But Mel Gibson, as we have painfully witnessed, is just a man. He will make mistakes. He is capable of taking the wrong path. People holding him too closely as their latest celebrity Christian hero can get burned.
The Christian community did this a few years ago with Jane Fonda. She declared her faith in Christ and Christian groups stumbled over each other in an effort to trot her out as the latest trophy validation of—just maybe—Christianity was true after all. Cal Thomas warned us back then. He said the woman is a new believer and to let her alone. Give her time to grow. Unfortunately she has now renounced her Christian faith and is experimenting with other spiritualist interests. The point is, when are we going to learn?
Satan is also at work. Had Mr. Gibson run off with a woman not his wife, Hollywood and the rest of American culture barely have blinked. We would have pointed out the inconsistency of this action with his recent religious film-making, but then we would have moved on. Immorality is an everyday occurrence in Hollywood and for that matter everywhere else too. But Mr. Gibson stepped over a currently sensitive line. In other words, Anti-Semitic remarks are a far greater Hollywood sin than immorality. I’m not saying Anti-Semitic comments shouldn’t be condemned. I’m just saying that the ripple effect of this kind of behavior back to a film like The Passion of the Christ is greater than immorality might have been.
I am sorry for Mr. Gibson. I like him and much of his work. I hope he gets help for his alcoholism, and I hope he is able to rebuild his reputation. More importantly, I hope he has or comes to real faith in Jesus Christ along with a biblically Christian, loving view of Jewish people. I also hope the Christian community learns a powerful lesson about not jumping on too quickly to the latest celebrity Christian’s bandwagon.
© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2006
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.
Plagiarism For Fun And Profit
Expired- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Plagiarism has long been the bane of college professors. Under the pressure (generally self-imposed by procrastination) of approaching deadlines, college students too frequently “write” term papers by “borrowing” from myriad sources—whether intentionally or unintentionally is sometimes difficult to discern. And in today’s Internet environment, the sky’s the limit in finding usable content. Either way, the student has taken another author’s material and called it their own. Plagiarism is a fancy term for theft of intellectual property.
Not long ago we were treated to the spectacle of James Frey’s fall from grace on the Oprah Winfrey Show when he acknowledged that some—maybe a lot—of his supposed memoir was actually fiction.
Now we’re at it again. Harvard University sophomore Kaavya Viswanathan has been caught red handed. She’s now admitted that much of her novel (for which she was given a six figure advance), How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life, was lifted from Megan McCafferty’s books, an author Viswanathan read (a long time ago?) as a high school student. Little, Brown and Co, Viswanathan’s publisher, has pulled her book from stores and is feverishly attempting to revise it as fast as possible—in the pursuit of truth or to take advantage of the “negative” publicity that will ultimately sell more books for Viswanathan as it did for Frey?
Truth will never go out of style, but at times it does seem like an endangered species. At least we can be grateful there’s enough “borrowed Christian values” (as the late Francis A. Schaeffer called them) left in our culture that people still yearn for something real, for integrity.
So, whether for principle or for profit, here’s to those who recognize that honesty is still the best policy. Ms. Viswanathan is very young. Hopefully she’s learned to apply her own talents, not make money via another person’s pen.
© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2006
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.
Character Matters
Expired- Details
- Written by: Rex M. Rogers
Very few articles I have read about an alleged rape possibly involving members of the Duke University Lacrosse team have mentioned the words “right” or “wrong,” “character,” or “morality.” Instead, we’re being treated to a steady diet of references to race, class, patterns of masculine power over women, wealth, and entitlement. Perhaps any or all of these variables are involved in this case, but one thing is certain, character, or the lack of it, is certainly involved.
When young men act out excessive macho scenarios they are demonstrating the immaturity of their character. When coaches wink at exceptional athletes’ moral misadventures it’s a matter of weak character. When student athletes hammer themselves into drunken oblivion it’s about misguided character. When women willingly participate in paid erotic dancing they evidence cracks in their character. When women and men place themselves in sexually charged situations it’s all about limited character.
If a student athlete’s character is well grounded and well established, he or she will not participate in ethically, morally, or legally questionable activities. Wholesome character considers race, class, and wealth simply interesting variations in the human universe, not sources of ego, intolerance, or bigotry. Individuals with mature moral character will not harm others of the opposite sex, nor will they look at life through the lens of entitlement. People with character just don’t act that way, and they don’t require more laws, police officers, campus speech or behavior codes, or sensitivity training to know how to live above reproach.
Character matters. We learned that watching the O.J. Simpson trial, when we learned about President Clinton and “that woman,” when we heard about Kobe Bryant’s Colorado “consensual sex,” when we grieved at what happened at Abu Grhaib, and when we discovered a few businessmen’s greed could hurt the pension plans of hundreds of thousands of people and put thousands of others out of work. Recovering a respect for character in all parts of our culture is, today, a near crisis need.
© Rex M. Rogers - All Rights Reserved, 2006
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/rexmrogers.