Public Figures, Private Lives

There are three Presidential candidates. Candidate A is a non-smoking, non-drinking vegetarian. Candidate B is a heavy smoking, borderline alcoholic with suicidal depressive tendencies. Candidate C is an adulterous chain-smoker (who also likes the odd glass or three). How will you good people vote?

Most of you will, no doubt, choose Candidate A. Congratulations! You have rejected Winston Churchill (B) and Franklin Roosevelt (C) and just elected …Adolf Hitler.

I use this exercise when I teach political ethics. And time and again I get an overwhelming (80%+) vote for Hitler. Am I teaching a crowd of Nazis? No, I am teaching people who feel strongly that personal moral character is a quality that politicians should have. The outrage felt by many over the latest sexual exploit of President Jacob Zuma illustrates this conviction quite clearly.

But, as my little thought experiment illustrates, is there really a connection between personal conduct and quality of political leadership? Despite depression, cigars and lots of whiskey, Churchill led a besieged Britain through World War Two, inspiring a nation who from 1939 to early 1942 had their backs to the wall, facing almost alone a seemingly unstoppable adversary.

Franklin Roosevelt, from 1932 to 1945 dragged the United States out of a major economic depression by means (New Deal „socialism‟) that made him unpopular with elites and then led the country through the Second World War, dying just as victory was in sight. These were two great leaders. Yet – it is quite clear – with many personal faults.

Moral theology helps us perhaps to understand the contradictions. There is a principle called the Fundamental Option which can basically be described as the broad-based general moral outlook of every person. It is directed either towards others and goodness (what people of faith call God) or it is directed totally towards self and in some cases towards evil. The fundamental option for good/God does not mean that I am morally perfect – if anything it may help me to see all my imperfections and sin and to humbly struggle and strive to do better. The important thing, though, is that I do strive, that I am able to face my faults with humble honesty.

What then of our politicians with personal flaws? Churchill and Roosevelt were clearly leaders with a range of problems, personal and emotional. Yet they were, fundamentally, good people with their moral sense oriented towards the good. And they were highly effective in what they did. Hitler, despite all the good (some might say politically correct) habits, was a monster – a creature filled with hatred and violence, and highly effective at causing harm.

We need to distinguish between character traits that point towards and feed into bad governance and moral weaknesses (that many of us, let‟s be honest, may share) that do not in themselves affect the effectiveness of political leadership. Indeed there are even times when moral „saints‟ prove to be bad leaders because they are incapable of handling the inevitable compromises that are part and parcel of running a democracy.

The fundamental question we should ask, then, is not whether our leader is an adulterer or a drunk but whether these flaws of character actually get in the way of governing effectively or justly.