What's more important in a leader - character or issues?

[Dunderman]

In this unusually polite Pit thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275553), qts and others say that it's more important for a leader to be of good character and decisive, and not be "pushed around on the international stage" than to have the "right" views on the issues. In other words, qts seems to prefer a President who decisively does the wrong thing than a President who indecisively does the right thing, where "right" and "wrong" are defined according to qts's own definitions.

This I don't get at all. I'm not even sure what qts means by being "pushed around on the international stage" in any concrete sense, I don't see why it's so good to be of "good character", whatever that means, and even if I did it certainly couldn't possibly be any more important than what he was actually going to do while in office. However, understanding what qts means and why he thinks that way would probably help me understand much about my fellow humans that's now completely incomprehensible to me.

I therefore throw the question open. What do you want in a leader? Agreement with you on the issues, or good "character" and decisiveness?

[dalej42]

To me, the issues are more important. People liked Bill Clinton's position on the issues but they didn't like the affair. I agree with John Kerry on 90% or so of the issues and that is why I'll vote for him.

[Oy!]

Tom Clancy implied in one of his books that character was more important, because POTUS has his finger on the 'button' and you want to make sure that such a person has the kind of character to make the right decision.

I agree with that, but I also feel that one's stand on many issues indicates one's character to a great extent. Thus I tend to be an issue voter.

What I don't understand is how a former drunken frat-boy, whose daddy (and friends) have bought him every position he's ever held (and he's still managed to fail at most), who admittedly doesn't read, and has taken more vacation and campaign trips than any president in history, has achieved a reputation for any character other than that of spoiled rich-kid.

[El_Kabong]

Hmmm, a rare sighting of the reverse- or un-Pitting. Interesting

Since, in my experience, so many people seem to define "character" as either "stubborn refusal to modify one's stance based on new information" or "blind obedience to dogma", I have no choice but to say that how a leader deals with issues is by far the more important factor.

I suspect this will quickly turn into a referendum on which candidate has the greater character, but I'll my opinion to myself for the moment.

[Dunderman]

What I don't understand is how a former drunken frat-boy, whose daddy (and friends) have bought him every position he's ever held (and he's still managed to fail at most), who admittedly doesn't read, and has taken more vacation and campaign trips than any president in history, has achieved a reputation for any character other than that of spoiled rich-kid.
I'd really like to be able to avoid this kind of thing in this thread, if at all possible. I'd like to debate the question in my original post, not the specific merits of Bush and Kerry.

[Dunderman]

Oh, and this isn't specifically about the President of the US either, it's about any publicly elected leader.

[erislover]

I think they are equally important. I want the politician to focus on the issues we focus on, but I also want a politician to be honest and accountable about what they do. Issues will get a politician elected, and character will keep him elected.

[Lissa]

A president's character only matters to me as far as it affects the people of the US. Lying to involve the country in a war is a problem, whereas cheating on his wife, cheating on his taxes, drug use or other vices is not. I don't think a man who screws around with interns is more likely to push the "button" nor that past drug use makes him untrustworthy or unstable.

Character is such an intangible quality. It is seen through the lens of each individual's experience. It's hard to measure up to a standard which varies from person to person.

[Revtim]

As I said in the pit thread, issues are far more important to me.

For example, I agree with Kerry on many more issues than with Bush. Even if the characterization of Kerry as a flip-flopper was completely true, I'd still rather have a president with a 50 percent chance of making decisions in ways I agree with that a person who has 0 percent chance.

It's these decisions that might effect me. If somebody I love gets killed in a war I think was unnecessary, for example, it's little comfort that the person who started the war showed strong unwavering character in the face of those who opposed it.

Conversely, if a leader showed strong character opposing what I thought was a necessary war, that also would be little comfort when the enemy I thought was a threat attacked us.

[Johanna]

What really squicks my shit is when the media pundits tell us that Bush wins votes from the common average Joe Schmo because he's supposedly "the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with." Man, that is SO deeply fucked up on so many levels I don't know where to begin. For one thing, it should be clear to you, Mr. Average Joe Schmo, that you have not a snowball's chance in hell of ever being invited to "have a beer" with Bush. He does not give a fuck about you and your kind. He only hangs out with his filthy rich buddies.

[MaddyStrut]

I do look at a person's position on various issues. However, I care more about which candidate appears better able to handle whatever situations arise while they're in office. Issues change.

For example: rather than "where do they stand/how did they vote on Iraq," I'm more concerned with "how well will this person work with congress and the international community," "do they appear willing to commit to force but only where needed after carefully considering all the ramifications," and "where do they stand on the trade off between domestic freedoms and national security."

I'm not sure whether that's an issues or character judgement. Certainly a candidate's stand on current issues can give you insight into how they'd stand on those in the future. But I'm also concerned with their general philosophy, personality, and intelligence. I don't really care if they had extra marital affairs or partied too hard in college.

[rjung]

As any lemming knows, all the "good character" in the world means diddly/squat if you're being led off a cliff.

(Yes, I know lemmings don't really go for the mass suicide thing, and it's all a myth perpetuated by Walt Disney. Work with me here, people...)

[jshore]

I'm not really sure where issues end and character begins. As some have said, a candidates stands on the issues and how they arrive at these stands shows you a good bit about their character.

I am also a big believer that a person's general patterns in the past are a good predicter of how they will act in the future. For example, one of the few threads that I have actually started here on the SDMB (I post a lot but seldom start new threads) was back in 2000 when I asked for people to provide evidence in the past of any case where Bush had "not danced with those who brung him," i.e., when he truly went against the wishes of the monied corporate interests behind him. I can't remember receiving any true example in response. I think this showed a lot both about Bush's character and how he would stand on the issues. And, really nothing he has done since has in my view deviated from this.

[Eureka2]

Since, in my experience, so many people seem to define "character" as either "stubborn refusal to modify one's stance based on new information" or "blind obedience to dogma", I have no choice but to say that how a leader deals with issues is by far the more important factor.


Nonsense! Don't base your assumptions on bogus word definitions. Good character is essential as the presidency is ultimately a position of moral leadership. A good working definition of character is the sum total of traits that make up the individual, to include discipline, honesty, brevity, hard work, candor, commitment, etc. The Scouts have a good working definition in their creed or whatnot.

[Eureka2]

Character is such an intangible quality.

Why would you make such an assertion? A citizen's character is on display every day whether they are a politician, sports figure, musician, religious leader, civic leader, etc., it's vitally important for young people especially to learn at an early age what character is about, and do them a great disfavor by intimating that character is "intangible." It's VERY tangible.

[jshore]

By the way, after reading the Pit thread in question, I've come to the conclusion that qts is using the word character in a completely bizarre way that seems to in many ways be the very opposite of character. As near as I can make out, there are a few vague issues that qts feels so strongly about like "anti-communism", the U.S. not getting pushed around, etc., that he is basically looking for people who share the views on these issues. And, it makes little difference to him whether they are willing to pursue their goals by illegal means (like Iran-Contra) as long as the end is good in his view.

If that is his definition of character (and it certainly seems to be how he has fleshed it out in that thread), I think the whole thing is basically a "canard". qts isn't really interested in character in any definition of the word that I would find reasonable.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

In a representative democracy, I want elected leaders who will vote for or support issues that I agree with. I don't give a rat's ass about their "character." I'm not even sure what that word means. For a lot of people it seems to mean "agrees with me." I get the impression that there are some who think that character is defined as a narrow set of religious or sexual values. If a guy gets a blow job, he lacks "character." If he lies his way into a war but doesn't cheat on his wife he does have character. It's all just nonsense.

I suppose it's helpful if the guy is not corrupt in his official duties, if he doesn't lie about anything important or sell himself out completely to other interests.

As long as he votes the right way as a legislator or signs and vetoes the right things as an executive, he could be Caligula in his personal life for all I care.

[Lissa]

Why would you make such an assertion? A citizen's character is on display every day whether they are a politician, sports figure, musician, religious leader, civic leader, etc., it's vitally important for young people especially to learn at an early age what character is about, and do them a great disfavor by intimating that character is "intangible." It's VERY tangible.

What I meant was that not everyone has the same definitions of what is "right" and "wrong." For example, it wouldn't bother me one whit to discover that a candidate had had a child out of wedlock, but some people would see this as morally wrong. Many people think that it's essential that a candidate have religious faith-- I don't. Some people would rule out a candidate because of past substance abuse--I wouldn't. So, if there is no single, clearly defined moral standard, how can "character" be tangible?

Secondly, I agree that it is important for young people to learn how to be good, productive members of society, but I don't think that "looking up" to political or entertainment figures should be a significant part of it. Both of these groups are terrible examples.

Nor do I agree that a person's public persona is an honest indicator of their character. Anyone can behave themselves for an hour or so, and leave a great impression on those with which they come in contact. It's what happens when the door is closed and the shades drawn that truly shows a person's character.

[Dunderman]

Eureka2, educate us. What, in precise, concrete terms, is character?

[Quartz]

As I said in the pit thread, issues are far more important to me.

For example, I agree with Kerry on many more issues than with Bush. Even if the characterization of Kerry as a flip-flopper was completely true, I'd still rather have a president with a 50 percent chance of making decisions in ways I agree with that a person who has 0 percent chance.

But what about someone who goes one way then the other? For those that haven't read the Pit thread, I gave the example of the Foot and Mouth epidemic in the UK. There were two options (apart from doing nothing): wholescale vaccination or wholesale slaughter. I preferred the former, but they chose the latter, despite large-scale opposition (hey, we killed millions of animals). But I could understand why they did it, and respected that. Had they flip-flopped the damage would have been vastly worse.

Similarly, Bush and Blair have a clear idea of what they want for Iraq, with which I disagree; I understand it, even admire it, but they're steadfastly going for it and not letting themselves get derailed.

When push comes to shove , when things really matter, I want a leader whose decision I can trust and respect, even if I disagree with it. Sure I might vote him or her out over it at the next election if someone of sufficient character and better (for me) policies stands against them.

[jjimm]

Well I am just stumped by that attitude. "I don't care what you do as long as you do it single-mindedly". What about adapting to circumstances?

I can't even begin to understand this way of thinking.

[Eureka2]

"... If there is no single, clearly defined moral standard, how can "character" be tangible? It's what happens when the door is closed and the shades drawn that truly shows a person's character.

First you imply that character doesn't exist, but then, character is how one behaves when no-one is watching?

[Stonebow]

I'd have to say that my first inclination is to go with whoever is advocating positions that i agree with. However, 'character,' depending on how you want to define it, is very important to me, especially in the event that my candidate isn't elected.
Whatever his politics, I would like to have someone reasonable, thoughtful, and willing to listen to the opposing side...of course, I don't really care about sexual foibles, etc. unless they rise to the level of criminal offense. And I think that, as some other posters have noted, 'strong' is hard to quantify, and quite often refers to intractability on issues the poster agrees with.
Frankly, I'd want that in the candidate that agrees with my politics as well, since I think we've gone too far in demonizing our political enemies for the good of the country.

Of course, you'll notice this same thinking in the many liberals that would be comfortable with a McCain presidency despite policy disagreements, because he comes across as a 'good guy.'

[msmith537]

It's what happens when the door is closed and the shades drawn that truly shows a person's character.

I don't want to know about a persons "character" at that particular time. :eek:



There are many components to being a good leader:
-Ability to lead and influence others (charisma)
-Direction and vision (the issues)
-Ability to recognize and make the "right" decisions for the "right" reasons (IOW, character)


It's simplistic to say one is more important that the other. A charismatic leader without direction is just a talking head (Kerry). A capable leader without a moral framework or is so certain of his morality that he is unwilling to comprimise can incite disaster (Bush). A leader with a clear vision who wants to do the right thing but lacks the ability to generate support is useless (Nader).


I'm not even sure what [character] means...

I suppose it's helpful if the guy is not corrupt in his official duties, if he doesn't lie about anything important or sell himself out completely to other interests.


That would be character.

The reason that people get all worked up over affairs or corrupt dealings is that they demonstrate a lack of character. We trust our politicians to act in the best interest of their constituents. If said politician can't manage to not have an affair for four short years or embarks in shaddy dealings, how do we know he isn't violating our trust as well?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't want to know about a persons "character" at that particular time. :eek:



There are many components to being a good leader:
-Ability to lead and influence others (charisma)
-Direction and vision (the issues)
-Ability to recognize and make the "right" decisions for the "right" reasons (IOW, character)
Are you aware that Hitler possessed your first two qualities?

And your third criterion, "making the right decisions" is completely subjective. The "right" decisions means nothing more than "decisions I agree with. For millions, Hitler met that standard as well.
It's simplistic to say one is more important that the other. A charismatic leader without direction is just a talking head (Kerry).
I diasgree that Kerry has no direction. I also disagree that he has much charisma.
A capable leader without a moral framework or is so certain of his morality that he is unwilling to comprimise can incite disaster (Bush).
I strongly disagree that Bush is a remotely capable leader. Capable leaders do not make reckless decisions or get us into military quagmires. I do agree that he has no moral framework (other than religious zealotry) but that's not why he's a crap president.
The reason that people get all worked up over affairs or corrupt dealings is that they demonstrate a lack of character.
I dosagree. They get worked up about public corruption because it actually affects the public. "Character" has nothing to do with it. I don't care if a guy fucks dogs as long as he doesn't fuck my dog.
We trust our politicians to act in the best interest of their constituents. If said politician can't manage to not have an affair for four short years or embarks in shaddy dealings, how do we know he isn't violating our trust as well?
What the hell does an affair have to do with how a guy does his job? What the hell does sex have to do with character?

Martin Luther King was a chronic adulterer, did he lack "character?"

If you need surgery, do you care if the surgeon cheats on his wife? Does his sex life have anything to do with his ability to perform surgery.

Elected leadership is just a job like any other. People can either perform their jobs competently or they can't. Moral "character" is nice but it's not required. Sometimes it even gets in the way (Jimmy Carter).

[Quartz]

Here's another way of looking at it: you have Candidate A whose policies you rate 3/10 but you reckon will actually vigorously pursue and achieve them, and Candidate B, whose policies you rate 7/10, but you reckon that he's likely to cave or dither in the face of opposition, thus getting little or nothing done. For whom do you vote?

I'd vote for Candidate A.

If I made each rating 5/10 there'd be no contest, would there?

[Lissa]

First you imply that character doesn't exist, but then, character is how one behaves when no-one is watching?

No. What I said was that the definition of character varies from person to person. Your definition may not be the same as mine. That does not mean that the concept of character in of itself does not exist, but that each person judges it differently. There is not a single, universal standard-- that's why I call it intangible.

Secondly, I said that the image that a person presents in public is not necessarily a true reflection of their character. From what I've heard, people who knew him casusally thought Jeffery Dahmer was a nice guy. Judging a person's character based on a fifteen second video clip or on watching a speech is like judging a work of literature by the first sentance in the book.

[shy guy]

Here's another way of looking at it: you have Candidate A whose policies you rate 3/10 but you reckon will actually vigorously pursue and achieve them, and Candidate B, whose policies you rate 7/10, but you reckon that he's likely to cave or dither in the face of opposition, thus getting little or nothing done. For whom do you vote?

I'd vote for Candidate A.
That doesn't make any sense. Candidate A, who holds your views 30% of the time, will be vigorously pursuing and achieving policies that you don't favor 70% of the time. And since Candidate A is supposedly more effective, that means that you can bet with some certainty that he's going to be making great strides working contrary to most of your interests.

For your theory to work, Candidate B would have to accomplish, literally, nothing (and if he's such a crappy politician, why is anyone supporting him in the first place?), and the views on which you don't agree with Candidate A would have to be pretty darn minor. Even if Candidate B is less effective on getting his policies accross than Candidate A, it's still likely that he'll win some of his battles, and he won't be actively working against you as much as Candidate A (and even if he is, you've said that he's ineffective, so it's not as big of a deal).

[Mtgman]

In a representative democracy you vote for someone to act for you as a proxy. You don't get veto power on their vote until the next election and then it is only retributive, it doesn't undo what that representative did during their time in office. A campaign promise for behavior X on issue Y is all well and good, but it is not binding. A trust relationship is explicitly involved in vesting your political power in some candidate for some period of time, as we all do who live in representative democracies. Evaluation of the character of the person one is entering into a trust relationship with is generally a good idea. Their positions on some issues and how they articulate them can be clues to this character, but ultimately a voter is vesting their political power in another individual. This individual's motives, reasoning capabilities, and judgement are of significant importance when entrusted with such a responsibility. These are often considered aspects of a person's "character" and therefore weigh heavily in a decision to invest political power.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Quartz]

That doesn't make any sense. Candidate A, who holds your views 30% of the time, will be vigorously pursuing and achieving policies that you don't favor 70% of the time. And since Candidate A is supposedly more effective, that means that you can bet with some certainty that he's going to be making great strides working contrary to most of your interests.

That's not quite correct: there's the neutral ground. Just because you don't favour a policy doesn't mean that you hold it in disfavour.

[shy guy]

That's not quite correct: there's the neutral ground. Just because you don't favour a policy doesn't mean that you hold it in disfavour. Well if you don't disfavor a policy that's in opposition to one that you favor, the issue probably isn't that important to you anyway (since, in effect, you're saying "I don't care what he does on this as long as he makes a decision).

It still doesn't make any sense to vote for Candidate A. Let's say you agree with him on 3/10 of the issues, disagree on 5/10, and are neutral on the other 2/10. He's going to be working in your interest 30% of the time, actively working against your interests 50% of the time, and doing things that you don't care about either way 20% of the time.

Let's say you agree with Candidate B on 7/10 of the issues, diagree on 1/10 of the issues, and are neutral on the other 2/10. Though you posited an ineffective candidate, he's still going to get some of his stuff through, so let's say he ultimately promotes your interests about 40% of the time whereas he caves on the remaining issues you support. He disagrees with you on one issue, but since he's ineffective and you presumably agree with the opposition (or would at least prefer that the opposition had their way), that might actually be a bonus for you. And the other 20% of the time you don't really care what he does (unless his "weak character" compels him to make no decision at all, in which case I guess I'd need an example of what you're talking about).

Can you give an example of a scenario in which it would be a good idea to vote for Candidate A?

[bup]

I go with issues over character, because I don't think we ever know character of a candidate or elected official - and it's the easiest thing for the political opposition and media to distort.

Character is measured better in posterity, and then very imperfectly.

Further, most citizens believe their candidate has better character anyway - it's a chicken-and-egg thing. If in office, the official's character is impugned, the people who never liked him/her for their issues will believe everything, and those who supported him/her will believe the charges are all lies and distortions. That's true in all but the most extreme cases.

[Stonebow]

That's not quite correct: there's the neutral ground. Just because you don't favour a policy doesn't mean that you hold it in disfavour.

I'm not denying tihs, but can you give me an example? I am really having trouble thinking of a policy that I have absolutely no opinion on. I actually tend to agree with shy guy's analysis.

[msmith537]

Are you aware that Hitler possessed your first two qualities?

And your third criterion, "making the right decisions" is completely subjective. The "right" decisions means nothing more than "decisions I agree with. For millions, Hitler met that standard as well.


I was specifically thinking of Hitler and Stalin when I wrote it. Right and wrong are subjective but there are certain objective standards which most people would agree are wrong - ie systematically killing millions of people.




Capable leaders do not make reckless decisions or get us into military quagmires. I do agree that he has no moral framework (other than religious zealotry) but that's not why he's a crap president.


His religeon is his moral framework. That's what religeon is. Capable leaders DO sometimes make bad decisions. Leadership is not being omniscient.




What the hell does an affair have to do with how a guy does his job? What the hell does sex have to do with character?

Because his "job" is to represent the United States. It's the same reason accounting and law firms and investment banks "frown" on their employees publicly acting in a manner that puts them in a bad light. People see someone who is supposed to make important decisions - decisions that affect millions of people - and demonstrate good judgement. Do you think that cheating on your wife with a 21 year old intern is good judgement? Why should we assume that even though he breaks a vow to his wife he will uphold a vow to his constituents? At the very least, I would prefer to not have a leader distracted by these kinds of family problems.



Martin Luther King was a chronic adulterer, did he lack "character?"


Yes, in this particular area of his life.


If you need surgery, do you care if the surgeon cheats on his wife? Does his sex life have anything to do with his ability to perform surgery.


Would you invest with a stockbroker who cheats on his wife? Or does drugs during his free time? Regardless of his performance in the market?

I will agree that we do set impossibly high standards for our politicians. You have to question what kind of person has no vices at all.

[Dunderman]

Would you invest with a stockbroker who cheats on his wife? Or does drugs during his free time? Regardless of his performance in the market?
If he consistently showed good results, I'd have no problem with this.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Do you think that cheating on your wife with a 21 year old intern is good judgement?
I think it's irrelevant.
Why should we assume that even though he breaks a vow to his wife he will uphold a vow to his constituents? At the very least, I would prefer to not have a leader distracted by these kinds of family problems.
I don't give a crap about his vows to his wife. I just want him to vote my way and sign my way and veto my way. What he does outside of that is of no concern to me. I would certainly rather have an amoral libertine who supported my issues than a saint who did not.
Would you invest with a stockbroker who cheats on his wife?
If he's making me money he can make goat porn for all I care.
Or does drugs during his free time? Regardless of his performance in the market?
As long as the drugs to not impair his cognitive abilities to make me money, I don't care if shoots heroin into his eyeball. I don't even think it's immoral.

[msmith537]

I think it's irrelevant.
As long as the drugs to not impair his cognitive abilities to make me money, I don't care if shoots heroin into his eyeball. I don't even think it's immoral.

Well, that's your choice I suppose. Good luck with that.

It's not an issue of "morality". Personally, I would not want someone handling my affairs who constantly indulged in an addictive mind-altering substance.

[bup]

It's not an issue of "morality". Personally, I would not want someone handling my affairs who constantly indulged in an addictive mind-altering substance.Then you're implying it's not the character, it's that you don't trust the competence, which is begging the question.

[Quartz]

Well if you don't disfavor a policy that's in opposition to one that you favor, the issue probably isn't that important to you anyway (since, in effect, you're saying "I don't care what he does on this as long as he makes a decision).

<snippage>

Can you give an example of a scenario in which it would be a good idea to vote for Candidate A?

You've changed the scenario, and yes, I would weigh up what the candidate was likely to achieve that I did not like.

[shy guy]

You've changed the scenario In what way? Please feel free to correct me.

and yes, I would weigh up what the candidate was likely to achieve that I did not like. Why? Are you a political masochist or something? Seriously, I want to know how you could justify voting for a candidate who will be actively working against your views.

[Quartz]

In what way? Please feel free to correct me.

Why? Are you a political masochist or something? Seriously, I want to know how you could justify voting for a candidate who will be actively working against your views.

You've changed the scenario by adding additional variations. As for being a political masochist, I'll treat that contempt with the remark it deserves.

[NewHeart(Male)]

You've changed the scenario by adding additional variations. As for being a political masochist, I'll treat that contempt with the remark it deserves.

Didn't you get contempt and remark mixed up?

[NewHeart(Male)]

Well, that's your choice I suppose. Good luck with that.

It's not an issue of "morality". Personally, I would not want someone handling my affairs who constantly indulged in an addictive mind-altering substance.

Well, you did say

Would you invest with a stockbroker who cheats on his wife? Or does drugs during his free time? Regardless of his performance in the market?

Which implies that even though he's really good at what he does, he has these additional "habits" on the side.

In which case NO, I would not have any problem with his personal choices in life - so long as he made me my money.

[shy guy]

You've changed the scenario by adding additional variations. As for being a political masochist, I'll treat that contempt with the remark it deserves.

I asked you to give an example in which your scenario makes any sense at all, which you haven't. I've demonstrated why I think your position makes absolutely no sense, so please, enlighten me as to why it does. I'm very interested to know how you can justify voting for a candidate actively working against your views.