John Patrick Diggins: America needs integrity and humility in the Oval Office
[John Patrick Diggins is a professor of history at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. His recent books include Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History (W.W. Norton, 2007), Eugene O'Neill's America: Desire Under Democracy (University of Chicago Press, 2007), and the forthcoming "God Is Dead! Long Live Religion."]
Is ethical leadership possible in the politics of our era? Had the question no specific time frame, the answer might be yes, or at least yes and no. But in the 21st century, the idea that we can expect ethical leadership in American politics is to believe that hope triumphs over experience. The purpose of politics is no longer to do what is right for the sake of the public good but to do what is expedient for the sake of the self and its desire for power and fame. Electoral victory is the only game in town, and candidates will do whatever it takes to win.
Historically, ethics was the domain of religion. But in America, in our times, religion follows politics rather than leading it. Consider the devout Christians who believe in premarital chastity defending the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's teenage daughter for the sake of the presidential election. Organized religion can no more serve an ethical calling than a prostitute can regain her virginity. The recent rash of public scandals — Alaska Senator Ted Stevens's home makeover courtesy of an oil-services firm, former presidential contender John Edwards's cheating on his wife, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's patronage of a prostitution ring — has taken place as the American people declare themselves to be religious, firm believers in the existence of God. The more their representatives sin, the more constituents pray.
Ethics is supposed to be about ideals that stand above the scrimmage of struggle and success. A little background in history and ethics will demonstrate how we have come to our current state. Ethics, rooted in religion, animated the first settlers to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the early 17th century, but politics quickly left its religious roots behind. When we look at John Winthrop's "A Model of Christian Charity" (1630) and compare it with The Federalist Papers (1787-88), we see precisely the abandonment of high moral principles in order to settle for the pursuit of worldly matters.
God, according to Winthrop, deliberately created human beings unequal so that each and every member of society should have need of the others. The Puritan covenant called upon the colonial settlers to walk toward each other in "justice and mercy" and to subordinate individual desires to the good of the larger community. By the time of the drafting of the Constitution, however, God had disappeared from political discourse, and society's members were asked to accept a government of external controls precisely because they had lost the capacity to control themselves. No longer would the American people be assured, in the classical sense, that if they knew what was right, they would naturally do what was good. No longer would they be assured, in the Christian sense, that if they abided by the Commandments, their conduct would be good, virtuous, and just. In that progression, we see the eclipse of ethics in American history, the erosion of conscience, and the conviction of judgment and duty. The Federalists were secularists who thought scientifically, and thus the Constitution they helped devise was concerned not with teaching people what they ought to do, but predicting what they would do — "vex and oppress" one another if not subject to external restraints....
Read entire article at Chronicle of Higher Ed
Is ethical leadership possible in the politics of our era? Had the question no specific time frame, the answer might be yes, or at least yes and no. But in the 21st century, the idea that we can expect ethical leadership in American politics is to believe that hope triumphs over experience. The purpose of politics is no longer to do what is right for the sake of the public good but to do what is expedient for the sake of the self and its desire for power and fame. Electoral victory is the only game in town, and candidates will do whatever it takes to win.
Historically, ethics was the domain of religion. But in America, in our times, religion follows politics rather than leading it. Consider the devout Christians who believe in premarital chastity defending the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's teenage daughter for the sake of the presidential election. Organized religion can no more serve an ethical calling than a prostitute can regain her virginity. The recent rash of public scandals — Alaska Senator Ted Stevens's home makeover courtesy of an oil-services firm, former presidential contender John Edwards's cheating on his wife, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's patronage of a prostitution ring — has taken place as the American people declare themselves to be religious, firm believers in the existence of God. The more their representatives sin, the more constituents pray.
Ethics is supposed to be about ideals that stand above the scrimmage of struggle and success. A little background in history and ethics will demonstrate how we have come to our current state. Ethics, rooted in religion, animated the first settlers to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the early 17th century, but politics quickly left its religious roots behind. When we look at John Winthrop's "A Model of Christian Charity" (1630) and compare it with The Federalist Papers (1787-88), we see precisely the abandonment of high moral principles in order to settle for the pursuit of worldly matters.
God, according to Winthrop, deliberately created human beings unequal so that each and every member of society should have need of the others. The Puritan covenant called upon the colonial settlers to walk toward each other in "justice and mercy" and to subordinate individual desires to the good of the larger community. By the time of the drafting of the Constitution, however, God had disappeared from political discourse, and society's members were asked to accept a government of external controls precisely because they had lost the capacity to control themselves. No longer would the American people be assured, in the classical sense, that if they knew what was right, they would naturally do what was good. No longer would they be assured, in the Christian sense, that if they abided by the Commandments, their conduct would be good, virtuous, and just. In that progression, we see the eclipse of ethics in American history, the erosion of conscience, and the conviction of judgment and duty. The Federalists were secularists who thought scientifically, and thus the Constitution they helped devise was concerned not with teaching people what they ought to do, but predicting what they would do — "vex and oppress" one another if not subject to external restraints....