By David Limbaugh
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
The sexting scandal of Anthony Weiner, the disgraced
former congressman and current New York mayoral candidate, puts into focus the
importance of character to public service.
Weiner's texts, tweets and photos show not just a tawdry
person but a risk-taking, deceitful individual who continued his serial texting
and lied about it even as he prepared to run again for office.
His wife, Huma Abedin, is standing by her man and expects
the public to defer to her judgment as to his fitness for office.
It is Abedin's personal business as to whether she will
forgive and support Weiner, but it is presumptuous and wrongheaded for her or
Weiner's supporters to lecture voters about how they should exercise their
prerogative in assessing his suitability.
This bizarre notion that we should separate our public
officials' private behavior from their public lives gained alarming credibility
during the Clinton years, when the president's enablers adamantly insisted that
all of his improper behavior was private and of no concern to the public.
"It's a private matter involving sex," they
chanted, attempting to immunize even Clinton's felonious perjury from
investigation because the underlying facts about which he testified and lied
"concerned a private matter about sex."
They used the same mantra to paint as private, irrelevant
and innocuous his episodes of oral sex in the Oval Office with a young intern
-- a textbook example of sexual harassment because of the power disparities
between those involved.
In this postmodern age, many -- especially secular
liberals and partisan Democrats -- are all too eager to demand that private and
public character be separated. All that should matter is whether a public
official's policies, especially economic policies, are successful.
Common sense, experience and fundamental ethics tell us
it's folly to believe we can separate a politician's private character from his
public performance -- that the success of an official's policies is all that
should matter.
Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias observed: "We
know that the premise of privatization is flawed because who we are in public
is determined by what we have learned and cherished in private. ... One cannot
help but wonder what would have happened to the United States if a man of
Lincoln's character had not been president at her most painful time of internal
strife as brother fought against brother. ... It is a mindless philosophy that
assumes that one's private beliefs have nothing to do with public office. Does
it make sense to entrust those who are immoral in private with the power to
determine the nation's moral issues and, indeed, its destiny? One of the most
dangerous and terrifying trends in America today is the disregard for character
as a central necessity in a leader's credentials. The duplicitous soul of a
leader can only make a nation more sophisticated in evil."
Indeed, the Framers understood the vital importance of
our leaders' virtue and character to the success of the Constitution and the
very endurance of the republic. John Adams famously said: "Our
Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate to the government of any other."
Author Joseph Ellis, in his book "Founding
Brothers," makes the same point poignantly in discussing Alexander
Hamilton's relationship with Aaron Burr: "The problem ... was that the
putative barrier between personal and political criticism, or private and public
behavior, kept getting overwhelmed by real choices. Personal character was
essential in order to resist public temptations." And: "Character
mattered because the fate of the American experiment with republican government
still required virtuous leaders to survive. Eventually, the United States might
develop into a nation of laws and established institutions capable of surviving
corrupt or incompetent public officials. But it was not there yet. It still
required honorable and virtuous leaders to endure."
Ellis' observations are profound, except that he seems to
fail to understand what the Framers grasped: that no matter how brilliant the
Constitution, no matter how developed we become as "a nation of laws and
established institutions," we could not permanently survive a ruling class
that is bereft of respect for its founding principles and the rule of law or is
of consistently dubious character.
The private behavior of our public officials matters
because it is a reflection of their character, and their character will
strongly influence their public actions. And their obedience to the
Constitution and rule of law matters; indeed, it is essential for the endurance
of the republic.
Anthony Weiner aside, when we have a president of the
United States who daily demonstrates his disrespect for our founding principles
and routinely flouts the rule of law, it is devastating to our liberties.
When Barack Obama acts unilaterally outside the scope of
his constitutional authority to issue executive orders to implement provisions
of the DREAM Act or environmental rules over Congress' objection or to delay
implementation of Obamacare and then scoffs dismissively when asked whether he
consulted lawyers on his authority to do so, he is out of control.
If we care about the republic, we have to care about the
character of its public officials.
Do not get lost in the sordid aspects of the Weiner
affair and allow them to obscure your focus on the larger issues of character
and respect threatening our republic today.
No comments:
Post a Comment