Getting to Know You

As we continue to watch the circus known as the nominating process for president, we reinforce our understanding of the necessity to maintain good companions. The longer we are exposed to each of them, the more we see their character evidenced by the company they keep. Given the comprehensive coverage by the media in all its shapes and forms we are able to gather far more information than the candidates wish to share. This data is in exponential excess compared to even as recent an election as 2000. If you Google any of their names you will come up with references in the tens of millions.

All senators are on official record with their respective votes on critical issues to the electorate. They chair, participate in and contribute to various committees and that also becomes part of the public record. This actually does form a somewhat accurate predictor for their future governing style. Even a cursory examination of those voting records reveals a general bias toward each one’s ideological identification. Some would probably say even more so than the company they keep. I disagree.

Our relatives are inescapable but the choice of our friends is a matter of agency. Although earnest discussions of vital issues are always welcome, would any sane person seek companionship from persons with whom they are in constant and heated disagreement? Once a friendship is established, would a faithful buddy ignore you to the extent that he was completely unaware of your positions on matters of great importance? That really doesn’t seem like much of a friend to me. It strikes me as opportunistic exploitation. “Yeah, I’ll be your friend, only if I have something to gain.”

After a riotous night on the town (I know, that doesn’t describe you!) and you wake up in jail; a friend comes to bail you out. Your best friend can’t do that because he’s sitting on the cot beside you in the cell. It’s a crude metaphor but it does define friendship. We are in this together. That certainly doesn’t make him a “role model” but at least he shares your values – good or bad. When the melee started, he didn’t hear the sirens and flee. He decided to remain and the two of you took the worst of it together.

Due to the nature of their “calling,” politicians live in a world of compromise and accommodation. That’s probably why so many assert “it makes for strange bedfellows.” This is not meant to excuse the latest exposures of unwholesome relationships but to supply some sense to why we may expect our “idols” to have feet of clay. They are human and subject to the entire range of human foibles. They follow the urgency of the moment without thought to the long range implications. This of course is what makes some of them unsuitable to lead the greatest country in the world.

We have been spoiled by some of the great presidents in our past. We have been led by men of superior character and not a few dunces. Use your own bias to supply the names. In every case, the republic has survived. It will again. The executive is only one of three branches of government. They bear a mutual constitutionally given responsibility and each branch should be willing to share the credit and the blame. If we see the candidates as celebrities and not prospective statesmen we will probably neglect our own responsibilities.

I do have a suggestion though. Examine those persons the prospects are close to and those they choose to emulate. A hundred fifty years ago, the German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) is quoted as saying; “We forfeit three-fourths of ourselves in order to be like other people.” We readily recognize in our own lives that strong friendship require we give up some of ourselves to sustain the relationship.. Are the candidates giving up too much?

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon