“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers, men [sic] who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”
Federalist No. 57, Seattle, Amazon Classics, 2017
So wrote James Madison (Publius) in the Federalist Papers in 1788. He was expressing the firm belief of the founding fathers of the U.S. Government, based on a democratic structure and system of governing, that leadership in it be entrusted to persons of character.
That new version of democracy they were trying out was both ingenious and highly appealing to the common people of the day. But those early leaders sensed that what mattered even more than the structure of the government, was the character of the people conducting it.
Isn’t that a far cry from today, where character, carefully considered, is simply not a part of the campaign and election processes for top leaders? Is Madison now turning over in his grave? Is there now any careful attention paid to character at all during candidacy?
No, there is not, for several reasons. Such assessments about the character of politicians are only made cursorily and impulsively, mostly in generalized, pejorative terms about the crass dysfunction of Congress and the administration. Character is not considered seriously at all. One famous bold liar about many aspects of his life made it all the way to the Senate in 2023!
Some of the reasons?
– Election structures exclude character topics, which would have to include carefully worded confrontative questions of would-be candidates, an uncomfortable process to be sure. But possible and, as current events have indicated, necessary.
– Party leaders mostly decide who gets included on election ballots. (And who has ever looked closely at THEIR character?)
– It costs a great deal of money to run for top offices. Fundraising success, charisma, “stage performance electability”, and compliance to party leaders’ current themes overshadow character assessment, and everything else, as criteria for inclusion.
– Character is mostly misunderstood as being a “yes or no” issue. But character is complex, and there is no widely accepted practical terminology with which to discuss it.
– To take character seriously, citizens, especially voters, would need to learn and understand a language of character and eventually demand that character assessment be built into the processes of state election boards that send political leaders to Washington.
We voters are a long way from accomplishing the task of adding a character assessment component to election processes. To do so would be a long-term task. But the basic ingredients of that recipe are now available to start the process cooking. The next twenty articles here on this Substack post will include practical terminology for assessing character which has the potential to grow into comprehensive use in evaluating the character of future political leaders.
As voters we could begin now to look carefully at all candidates through a series of virtue lenses essential on some level to make any candidate viable as a top leader, effectively serving the people. Leaders like Madison would have us do that, as a solid component of our decision-making process when pondering voting choices.
In the early years of the country’s history, there was little popular language other than yes or no, about character. But the truth is there has been developing quietly for several millennia a usable terminology for such assessments of character as sharp observers have yearned for better leadership. Key concepts have arisen in an evolutionary way from pragmatic observers in several parts of the world—the Middle East, China, Greece, and eventually the U.K. and the U.S. Gathered together that terminology can now be used to interpersonally inspect the character of political candidates.
From the earliest promoters of law like Hammurabi and philosophers like Plato, to prophets like Isaiah and a statesman like Ben Franklin, one can collect about 20 terms for characteristics our ancestors have yearned for in top leaders. This Substack cluster of twenty essays will describe those key characteristics and suggest ways to look at a candidate closely, and sometimes confront them, to assess the likeliness that those qualities are components of the personalities of each candidate seeking election.
Some virtues will need challenging candidates, even gentle, respectful, firm confrontation, to beckon them into greater visibility for recognition by the public. This has been shown in such arenas that require authenticity and careful communication for success as medicine, nursing, addiction counseling, group therapy, and clinical pastoral education. Direct challenging of candidates can be done now in public appearances, though eventually will require small group processing, and significant changes to the functioning of state election boards when the time comes.
Assessing character at this level will be some work, requiring thought, close observation, and preferably considerable discussion among us citizens, especially voters and those on the verge of voting. While there is no adequate forum for directly engaging political candidates now, as we voters improve our understanding of the language of character and experiment with using it, new ways of implementing such confrontative contexts will be developed, in public appearances and eventually in small group encounters.
We will start here with a few general suppositions.
First – What have been called virtues are simply positive characteristics of unique quality in a person. If that quality is not there in some unidentifiable measure, it leaves a hole or lacuna that can be ugly with its alternative opposite, especially in public figures. Character is always partially visible, and only partially, until on occasion the real presence of such traits as courage, radical honesty, and dedication to humanity become blindingly clear. Liz Cheney’s fortitude for example, was not widely noticed until she stood her ground fiercely at the crucial time, but then showed itself several times after that.
Second – these essays are based on a perspective that the universe and humanity are evolving, albeit so slowly that their progress can be missed with a rear view that is too short. Look back far enough and we see enormous progress on the planet from a molten rock 4.54 billion years ago, to now intelligent and caregiving life in sustaining communities of growing cohesion, sensitivity, and care, along with enhanced intimate loving, parenting, emotional connection, and intentional care of ecosystems. Leadership of nations is evolving as well, and reflections on the evaluation of top leadership over the centuries has precipitated the terminology of character we can now apply to our own potential leaders. The twenty characteristics described here can tell us which potential leaders can best lead democracies in future iterations.
Third, when judging character carefully and thoughtfully rather than cursorily and impulsively, it helps to accept that appraisal of character is always limited in certainty, rarely perfect. Remember that seeking excessive clarity mostly wastes time. Rather than observations and impressions leading to absolute clarity, let them lead to discussion instead. That will generally help citizens of a democratic society find enough clarity for character evaluation to be a useful component in how we choose to vote today.
The quality of many of today’s top politicians that is now most glaringly missing is what we can call a collaborative spirit, a liveliness for working together with diverse others to consistently improve effective shared decision making? Character terminology, accurately applied, can identify components of collaboration. Can a person collaborate effectively as an adult with the enormous responsibility of leading a country, without characteristics such as integrity, humility, prudence, justice, temperance, and dedication to the common welfare/good of its citizens? I suggest that they cannot, at least not consistently enough to be a responsible leader of millions of people.
Join me in this trek through the partially observable characteristics necessary to identify those who will most likely turn out to be responsible top leaders. The first such virtue, in our next post, will be justice as a personal characteristic. What is justice in that context? Who apparently has it, and who does not, at least enough of it to lead us politically?
Gordon J Hilsman, D. Min. lives in retirement in Washinton State and can be reached at [email protected] or on the web at WWW.GORDONJHILSMAN.COM, or soon at www.spiritualclinician.com He is the author of Assessing the CHARACTER of Candidates for National Political Office: In Search of a Collaborative Spirit
