The classical view on the relationship between ethics and rulership can be traced back to Plato (424-348 BCE), whose Republic argues that a state will never be well governed unless its rulers are virtuous. Plato’s student Aristotle challenged his master on many issues (rejecting Plato’s radical views on gender, the family, and the private ownership of wealth), but the two agreed in linking personal virtue and effective leadership. In contrast, the foundational texts of modern political philosophy –The Princeby Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) andLeviathanby Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) – distinguish the qualities of a skillful sovereign from the traits of a virtuous person. What can this debate between the ancients and the moderns teach us about the current Presidential race?
One can make a prima facie case that virtue has little to do with being a good President. Jimmy Carter, a sincerely devout Sunday-school teacher, was one of the most ineffectual of Presidents. In contrast, Jefferson, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and Clinton have been ranked either great or at least very good Presidents by most historians, but each had extra-marital romantic relationships that were – what shall we say? – problematic. Perhaps Machiavelli is right, and what we need from our leaders is not virtue but virtù – the amoral excellences that made states like the Roman Empire great, including cunning, disciplined self-interest, and daring.
I think that both the classical idealist and the modern realist are wrong about Presidential virtue. Virtue is an important trait of successful Presidents. As Robert W. Merry notes inThe National Interest,Lincoln’s greatness as President depended in large part on his virtues like tenacity (even in the face of what sometimes seemed like certain defeat), and the wisdom that allowed him to envision what America needed to become．但是传统的美德观念在一个关键的方面是错误的。柏拉图和亚里士多德都致力于“美德合一”的教义。根据美德的统一，为了拥有任何一种美德，你需要拥有所有的美德。这在某些情况下是合理的。想想仁与智的关系。塞缪尔·约翰逊(Samuel Johnson, 1709-1784)曾打趣道:“地狱是由善意铺成的。”这是一种诗意的说法，意思是为了拥有真正的同情心，你还需要有常识。但是，我们总统的记录和个人品质并不是在所有情况下都支持美德的统一。按照美德的统一，卡特应该是一位伟大的总统:卡特真正拥有忠诚、慷慨、虔诚、忠诚等美德，所以他也应该拥有总统所需要的实践智慧。相比之下，杰斐逊、罗斯福、艾森豪威尔和克林顿应该是糟糕的总统:他们每个人都在最重要、最亲密的人际关系中表现出不忠，所以他们应该缺乏所有其他的美德。
However, the unity of the virtues is not plausible as an ironclad rule. Humans are more complex than that, and sometimes manifest valleys of vice next to peaks of virtue. Nixon is an excellent example of the complexities of character. It took impressive fortitude for Nixon to come back again and again from political setbacks (including the devastating failure of Eisenhower to offer Nixon his firm support in the 1960 election). In addition, re-normalizing relations with China required brilliant strategic insight and courage to break with the views of many in his own party. However, Watergate was a largely self-inflicted wound. Nixon believed (perhaps rightly) that Kennedy had eked out a slim victory in 1960 through voter fraud in Illinois. Nixon lacked the healthy pride that would have allowed him to move beyond his bitterness over this. Kissinger expressed a deep insight into the limitations of Nixon’s character when he said, “He would have been a great, great man, had somebody loved him.” Consequently, even though Nixon could easily defeat McGovern fair and square, operatives with connections to the White House engaged in needless political dirty tricks that would eventually lead to the only Presidential resignation in US history. Looking at examples like Jefferson, Carter, and Nixon helps us to see that virtue and vice are far from binary. In place of the unity of the virtues, we should adopt a “pragmatic idealism about Presidential virtue.” We must demand virtue of our Presidents (idealism), but be prepared to evaluate them based on the complex relationships among their strengths and weaknesses (pragmatism).
Let’s see how a pragmatic idealism about Presidential virtue applies to a couple of the Republican candidates for the Presidency: Mike Huckabee and Marco Rubio. Huckabee’s religious faith seems as bona fide as that of Carter. He speaks movingly in his autobiography about how his experience as a Pastor shaped his political convictions. But does he possess the practical wisdom that a President needs? Over the last few weeks,Huckabee has repeatedly expressed his support for Josh Duggar．Duggar is the eldest son of a Fundamentalist Christian family featured on the reality show,19 Kids and Counting．最近有消息称，乔希·达格(Josh Duggar)承认在青少年时期性侵了5名未成年女孩(包括他的4个姐妹)。达格一家的观点和赫卡比的观点是，乔什真诚地为自己的罪行忏悔，他的姐妹们已经原谅了他，他已经改过自新了。大多数评论员所关注的围绕这些事件的问题当然是合理的。然而，我想提请大家注意一个被忽视的伦理问题。不管人们是否认为乔希•达格已经或能够改过自新，也不管人们是否认为媒体在“伤害”达格一家，不可否认的是，与一个被承认的儿童性骚扰者联系在一起是人们可以想象的最糟糕的政治责任。如果没有与这样的人断绝关系的实践智慧和自我保护意识，能成为有实效的总统吗?不管人们对达格尔丑闻还有什么看法，哈克比愿意花费政治资本来捍卫达格尔，这是否表明他具有总统级别的良好判断力?
Marco Rubio presents a very different issue.There is evidence that he has shown poor judgment in managing his personal finances．One writer editorialized that this shows Rubio “can’t be trusted [to] manage his own checkbook, much less run the country“但这种争论是美德的统一再次抬头。威廉·霍华德·塔夫脱是美国最胖的总统，但他的暴饮暴食与他的政府的优缺点无关。正如塔夫脱的暴饮暴食与他作为总统的成就无关一样，卢比奥的个人消费习惯也与他成为总统的资格无关。我们想要的是这样一位总统:他有勇气致力于实现政府角色的现实理想(包括政府财政)，他有智慧在自己的政党和反对党的温和派中组织对这一愿景的支持。我并不是说我知道卢比奥有这些优点，但他的个人财务状况并不能告诉我们是好是坏。
In theDivine Comedyof Dante (1265-1321), sins are distinguished and punishments allotted according to their severity. Adulterers are among the most sympathetic figures that Dante and Virgil encounter; those who are violent toward the defenseless are considered much worse, and Virgil warns Dante against sympathy toward them. This reflects Dante’s understanding (based in Catholic theology) of the complexity of human weaknesses. Any discussion of the need for our leaders to be virtuous must be similarly nuanced. Virtues are connected in subtle and complicated ways and need not come in one monolithic block. A pragmatic idealism about political virtues captures the fact that Presidents need genuine strength of character to succeed in the demanding role they occupy, but those strengths are not the same ones that make them good spouses, friends, or controllers of their household budgets.
Comments(1)
Harold G. Neuman
Sunday, August 23, 2015 -- 5:00 PM
I have been readingI have been reading Santayanna for the first time---a tome entitled: Dominations and Powers (1951). I particularly appreciated a short quip of his regarding government. George said (approximately): government is war, without the needless bloodshed. Pretty good summation. But, someone of you may wish to assail some or all of this comment. Go ahead. Virtue is, after all, highly overrated. As are even the best of presidents.
No apologies,
Neuman.