Who's Bad?

In the comments to a recent post about Newt Gingrich, there's been a discussion of how much character should matter in voting for candidates.  I say very little.

First, I don't believe personal character tells you much about how someone will serve.  There are plenty of people who personally connive, sometimes even going over the line, but who otherwise are very effective leaders. In any case, someone who has personal failings but supports programs I do is far preferable to someone simon pure who supports horrendous programs.  I don't vote people into office as a reward for their morality--in rewarding them, I'm punishing myself.

Is it possible for someone's private morality to fall so short that the candidate would lose my vote? I suppose, but it'd have to be pretty bad--say, murder or child molesting. (Or rape, you say?  Some believe we already had a rapist as president.) Lesser infractions, especially if they're safely in the past, don't bother me nearly so much.  Other failings--drug use or affairs--probably wouldn't change my vote. (If anyone who ever had an affair or illegally used drugs couldn't run for office, a lot of ballots would be empty.)

Then there's public morality--has a politician abused the public trust in the past.  Once again, this doesn't bother me too much.  Blago was a rotten governor because of how he ran things, not because, like so many Illinois politicians in the past, thought he could use his power to get a little something extra.  In fact, legal bribery is what politics (unfortunately) is all about--"give me money and vote for me and when I'm in office I'll use my power to return it all back to you and more." And then when they leave office, they make millions legally selling their influence.  In light of this, I can't get too excited about minor corruption from a politician who does a good job otherwise.

Second, we don't really know the character of candidates.  When it comes to issues, we can easily see their differences, since we have their political records, and direct statements on where they stand.  But when it comes to character, they're all trying to convince us they're good people (and no doubt believe it).  The one who wins the character contest may then be the one who hides his past and his personal life the best. 

Third, character is really a partisan issue.  It's always the other guy who lacks character, and the other side that's involved in so many scandals.  Our side is the good guys--we're unfairly attacked and misunderstood.

Finally, the character issue is a waste of time.  It's a smokescreen that prevents actual discussion of issues, which, after all, is what will matter once the winner takes office.

Character can matter in a roundabout way, in that you don't necessarily want to nominate a candidate with character questions since other voters may be turned off.  So perhaps Republican voters can't ignore Newt Gingrich's personal life, as it will come up in a general election.  But that doesn't mean it'll make him a worse (or better) President.