Character and Consequence

By William L. Garvin
"The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men." Samuel Adams
In his influential book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, author Steven Covey points out that the literature on success for the first 150 years of this country focused on a “Character Ethic” as the mandated foundation. Attributes such as integrity, humility, fidelity, temperance, courage, justice, patience, industry, simplicity, modesty, and of course, the Golden Rule, were represented as the essential building blocks for true success and enduring happiness. As John Luther noted, “Good character is more to be praised than outstanding talent. Most talents are to some extent a gift. Good character, by contrast, is not given to us. We have to build it piece by piece, by thought, choice, courage and determination.” Covey then notes that shortly after WW I, the basic view of success shifted from the “Character Ethic” to a “Personality Ethic.” To paraphrase a popular commercial, “image became everything.” Public relations, advertising, positive mental attitudes, and outright manipulation, even deception, were all tricks of the trade to be mastered to influence or dictate successful outcomes.


Matt Patterson, a columnist for the liberal Washington Post, aptly characterized the election of Barack Obama in 2008 as just such a disastrous shift. “How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job? Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president? …Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.


What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.”
Covey points out that as a society, we are falling into a reactive “victim paradigm.” Patterson reinforces this observation in his concluding comments: “…And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence.


But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly? In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.”
While Patterson’s view may be harsh, it is inescapable that this President is in over his head. It is inescapable that the country can survive one term of incompetence. It is unclear whether this country can survive a voting population that might elect him to a second term. When voters are unable or unwilling to separate style from substance or form from function, when the choice is dictated by who is cool versus who is capable, results are predictable and perilous.