Posted on 01/06/2019 12:37:07 AM PST by DeweyCA
A few days ago, American Greatness published some thoughts of mine about Jonah Goldbergs contention that President Trump is not a man of good character and that, consequently, his administration will end poorly.
Character, Jonah says, is destiny. Trumps character is bad. Therefore his destiny is grim.
While acknowledging that the president is an imperfect man (but at whom can that criticism not be leveled?), I also defended Trumps character. Quoting Cardinal Newman, I noted that character was a multifaceted attribute. A man, said Newman, may be great in one aspect of his character, and little-minded in another. . . . A good man may make a bad king; profligates have been great statesmen, or magnanimous political leaders. I believe President Trump has been astonishingly successful during his first two years. I believe further that his success is a testament to the strength of his character.
Jonah disagrees with me absolutely about Trumps character and, in a more qualified way, about my assessment of Trumps successes. I am pleased that his explanation of those disagreements provides me an opportunity to expand on and clarify a couple of points.
To start with a clarification. Jonah says that in my earlier column I seemed determined to minimize, dispute, divert, and debunk the contention that Donald Trump is a person of bad character, while never actually denying it. The goal seems to be less to rebut my argument than to confuse the issue.
I apologize for my lack of clarity. Let me rectify that by stating baldly that I do believe Donald Trump is, in the ways that matter for a president, a man of good character.
I hasten to acknowledge that Jonah takes me and other supporters of the president to task for qualifications like in the ways that matter for a president. He thinks that all such admissions are obfuscating rhetorical window dressing designed to conceal a new and wholly instrumental definition of good character. Not only is Trump doing things conservatives want, but because Trump is doing what conservatives want, he clears a definition of good character.
I would answer that, first, the idea of character I have in mind is not a new one. One might trace it back to James Madisons thoughts, in Federalist 51, about the relationship between private imperfection and the public good. Indeed, one might trace it back to Aristotles discussion of the good at the beginning of the Nicomachean Ethics.
I think it is also worth pondering the work that Jonah wants the adverb wholly to do in the deflationary phrase wholly instrumental. Any meaningful definition of good character has to involve an instrumental element. Otherwise the character in question would be impotent. This is part of what Aristotle meant, I think, when he observed that it is our choice of good or evil that determines our character, not our opinion about good or evil. In dismissing the connection between character and potency as wholly instrumental Jonah flirts with an idea of character that is unanchored to the realities of life.
In a related criticism, Jonah complains that some of the presidents supporters defend him by comparing his behavior to the behavior of other politicians. This he calls Whataboutism. Donald Trump is alleged to have had an extramarital affair with Stormy Daniels. OK, but Bill Clinton did icky things with Monica Lewinsky. (I am not sure the cases are really comparable, but you see the strategy.)
Tu quoque objections are generally unconvincing and are certainly not, as your mother will have told you, exculpatory. But Jonah misses the larger point here. Many people were surprised when Peter Thiel declared his support for Donald Trump. He was just about the only Silicon Valley entrepreneur who did. One interlocutor, citing something unpalatable that Trump had done or said, asked Thiel how he could support Trump given his outré behavior. I dont support him because of the things he does that I dont like, Thiel said, but because of things that he does that I do like.
I think that is a mature and politically enlightened attitude. And it brings me to the two elephants that loiter about the room whenever the discussion turns to Trumps character and fitness for office. The first elephant is named Hillary Clinton. Jonah has been a staunch critic of Hillary Clinton. Bravo for that. But I believe I am correct in saying that confronted with the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump he abstained from voting for either. To me, although I too live in a place where Republican votes do not count, the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was an existential, a moral choicea choice, if you like, that turned upon the character of the two candidates.
I submit that anyone possessed of even a smidgen of what Henry James called the imagination of disaster will shudder at the prospect of what a Clinton presidency would have entailed. Who knows whom she would have nominated to the Supreme Court and other federal courts, what she would have done about taxes, about energy, about the plague of political correctness on college campuses, about military spending, about border security, about North Koreas nuclear ambitions, about religious freedom, about militant Islamism, about American manufacturing, about the size of government and the burdens of the regulatory state. And who knows what she would not have done, such as prime the economy to ensure near record peacetime employment and strong economic growthwhich are moral acts in themselves given the millions whose lives have already been changed for the better.
I say Who knows, but of course we all know. Hillary Clinton was the most corrupt serious candidate for the presidency in history, and her corruption was evident not merely in her lying to Congress and the the FBI, her pay-to-play schemes while secretary of state, and her handling of the Benghazi attack. It was evident, too, in her fealty to the dictates of the administrative state, to the unaccountable elite that 63 million voters elected Donald Trump to combat.
Which brings me to the other pachyderm in the vicinity. The most important pro-Trump essay to have been published on the run-up to the 2016 election undoubtedly was The Flight 93 Election by Michael Anton (writing then under the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus). The most famous bit of that essayan essay Jonah took to task when it appearedis the arresting comparison of the election to the doomed United Flight 93. The airliner was commandeered by murderous al-Qaeda fanatics. The only chance the passengers had was to storm the cockpit and try to retake control of the plane. The United States, Anton argued, faced an analogous peril. Its controls had been commandeered by people who would ruin us unless stopped. There was no guarantee that storming the cockpit of government by electing Donald Trump would save us. But it was our only hope.
That idea, as I say, was the most famous part of Antons essay. But perhaps even more telling in the context of this discussion about character was what he had to say about the conservative establishment.
If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed family values; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphereif they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believemustnt they?that we are headed off a cliff.
Alas, as Anton goes on to observe, its quite obvious that conservatives dont believe any such thing, that they feel no such sense of urgency, of an immediate necessity to change course and avoid the cliff. The status quo is the nutrient jelly in which they live. They may criticize it. But they would not dream of changing it.
It is in this contextthe context of Hillary Clinton as the only alternative to Donald Trump and the existential peril that Anton outlinedthat we must place any meaningful discussion of Trumps character. James Piereson makes an illuminating point about this aspect of the issue. The problem with Trump, he writes, is that it is hard to say what his character is, or where his unusual style ends and his character begins, or whether or not the various things he does actually reveal his character.
If Trumps character is his destiny, then it is hard to understand how he managed to come as far as he has through the ups and downs of a business career and now election to the highest office in the land. If we take his critics at their word, then Trumps bad character should have taken him out of the business world and certainly out of the presidential race a long time ago. Bad character leads to a bad ending. His success up until now, far surpassing the achievements of most mortals, contradicts the proposition that character is destiny, unless one is prepared to say that there are important aspects of Trumps character that produced his successa proposition that is worth pondering.
And this brings me to another thing that has struck me about much anti-Trump rhetoric: its astringent but unidirectional moralism. By unidirectional I mean directed exclusively at Donald Trump when there are many other suitable objects of moral obloquy parading about. Just yesterday, Bill Kristol, primus inter pares of the NeverTrump fraternity, provided a good example of the sort of moralism I have in mind. Trump, Kristol wrote on Twitter, is in fact losing to the left and destroying a decent and elevated conservatism as he does so.
What is this decent and elevated conservatism of which Kristol speaks? It is, of course, the conservatism that he and his friends representthe conservatism Michael Anton anatomized in his remarkable essay, a conservatism, alas, that may have the right opinion about morality but is too feckless actually to choose it.
The reason I am happy to say that Donald Trump, despite his imperfections, is a man of good character is that he has again and again shown himself to be willing to storm the cockpit of our corrupt, sclerotic, and increasingly unaccountable governmental apparatus. He has worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and by implication (and it was part of his genius to make this connection) on behalf of people everywhere. He understands that his job is to put America first, but that by so doing he benefits everyone with whom we deal. Those things, I think, are marks of good character.
One codicil. I have deliberately avoided engaging with most of the particulars of Jonahs indictment of president, mostly because many of the items he mentions are subject to vastly different interpretations. For example, he cites Trumps inability to hold onto cabinet secretaries of quality as a reflection of his bad character, but has Trump been unable to hold onto cabinet secretaries of quality? I can imagine someone arguing that Trumps cabinet, that his team in general, is stronger now than it ever was. But I understand that opinions differ.
I did, however, want to say a word about Jonahs comment about the presidents attitude toward the First Amendment. In my original column, I responded to Jonahs earlier criticism of the presidents rants against the First Amendment by saying that I couldnt recall any such rants. Jonah responded to this by observing that
on numerous occasions the president has talked about opening up libel laws and revoking FCC licenses of certain news outlets, endorsed physical assaults on protestors, wanted to ban adherents of an entire religion from entering the country, celebrated the physical assault of a reporter, said (while in Canada) that it is frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write, and so on. I dont think his rants about fake news, the enemy of the people, etc. are necessarily anti-First Amendment. But given the larger context of his views, I think its reasonable to see them that way.
I will pass over the more contentious items in this list. I do not think, for example, that it is accurate to say that the president wanted to ban adherents of an entire religion from entering the country. But I did want to comment on Jonahs point about opening up libel laws. The case in question was the landmark 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which made it almost impossible for any public figure to win a libel action. The press loved this decision. But, as the legal scholar Glenn Reynolds noted in The Judiciarys Class War, the decision was in effect a subsidy to media companies, whose libel risks (and insurance premiums) were drastically reduced. It also meant that juries . . . had far less power in libel cases. Perhaps coincidentally (but perhaps not), trust in the press has fallen steadily since the Sullivan ruling freed media organizations from previously existing legal accountability.
This was a point that the lawyer Gregory J. Sullivan dilated on in Jonahs magazine, National Review, on the 50th anniversary of the decision in 2014. Although the press celebrated the anniversary as a triumph for free speech, Sullivan wrote, for those committed to the text and history of the Constitution, and a judiciary tethered to them, there is nothing at all to celebrate.
Even by the imperial-judiciary standards of the Warren Court, this case stands out as something of a classic effusion in that Courts project of remaking American society to conform with its far-Left preferences. There is no question that the case is a watershed: Before New York Times v. Sullivan, the first amendment protected a free press that was responsible in law for its errors; after and because of this case, the press has anything-goes immunity from almost any mistakes, no matter how damaging. As a policy matter, this may or may not be a prudent development. Constitutionally, the decision is an infamous failure and a disgrace to the judicial role.
When one surveys the extraordinarily vituperative, monolithic, and unfair coverage under which the president and anyone associated him struggle it is easy to see why Donald Trump castigates fake news and thinks about revisiting decisions like New York Times v. Sullivan. Far from being an assault on the First Amendment, Id say it was an effort to protect it by limiting its abuse.
President Trump hits back hard.
PDJT has more character in his pinky finger than most men have in their whole body.
**************************
See 2016 entries:
https://247sports.com/college/west-virginia/Board/103782/Contents/Trump-Acts-of-Kindness-71134918/
**************************
In 1986, Trump prevented the foreclosure of Annabell Hills family farm after her husband committed suicide. Trump personally phoned down to the auction to stop the sale of her home and offered the widow money. Trump decided to take action after he saw Hills pleas for help in news reports.
In 1988, a commercial airline refused to fly Andrew Ten, a sick Orthodox Jewish child with a rare illness, across the country to get medical care because he had to travel with an elaborate life-support system. His grief stricken parents contacted Trump for help and he didnt hesitate to send his own plane to take the child from Los Angeles to New York so he could get his treatment.
In 1991, 200 Marines who served in Operation Desert Storm spent time at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before they were scheduled to return home to their families. However, the Marines were told that a mistake had been made and an aircraft would not be able to take them home on their scheduled departure date. When Trump got wind of this, he sent his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami to safely return the Gulf War Marines to their loved ones.
In 1995, a motorist stopped to help Trump after the limo he was traveling in got a flat tire. Trump asked the Good Samaritan how he could repay him for his help. All the man asked for was a bouquet of flowers for his wife. A few weeks later Trump sent the flowers with a note that read: Weve paid off your mortgage.
In 1996, Trump filed a lawsuit against the city of Palm Beach, Florida accusing the town of discriminating against his Mar-a-Lago resort club because it allowed Jews and blacks. Abraham Foxman, who was the Anti-Defamation League Director at the time, said Trump put the light on Palm Beach not on the beauty and the glitter, but on its seamier side of discrimination. Foxman also noted that Trumps charge had a trickle-down effect because other clubs followed his lead and began admitting Jews and blacks.
In 2000, Maury Povich featured a little girl named Megan who struggled with Brittle Bone Disease on his show and Trump happened to be watching. Trump said the little girls storyand positive attitude touched his heart. So he contacted Maury and gifted the little girl and her family with a very generous check.
In 2008, after Jennifer Hudsons family members were tragically murdered in Chicago, Trump put the Oscar-winning actress and her family up at his Windy City hotel for free. In addition to that, Trumps security took extra measures to ensure Hudson and her family members were safe during such a difficult time.
In 2013, New York bus driver Darnell Barton spotted a woman close to the edge of a bridge staring at traffic below as he drove by. He stopped the bus, got out and put his arm around the woman and saved her life byconvincing her to not jump. When Trump heard about this story, he sent the hero bus driver a check simply because he believed his good deed deserved to be rewarded.
In 2014, Trump gave $25,000 to Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi after he spent seven months in a Mexican jail for accidentally crossing the US-Mexico border. President Barack Obama couldnt even be bothered to make one phone call to assist with the United States Marines release; however, Trump opened his pocketbook to help this serviceman get back on his feet.
In 2016, Melissa Consin Young attended a Trump rally and tearfully thanked Trump for changing her life. She said she proudly stood on stage with Trump as Miss Wisconsin USA in 2005. However, years later she found herself struggling with an incurable illness and during her darkest days she explained that she received a handwritten letter from Trump telling her shes the bravest woman, I know. She said the opportunities that she got from Trump and his organizations ultimately provided her Mexican-American son with a full-ride to college.
Lynne Patton, a black female executive for the Trump Organization, released a statement in 2016 defending her boss against accusations that hes a racist and a bigot. She tearfully revealed how shes struggled with substance abuse and addiction for years. Instead of kicking her to the curb, she said the Trump Organization and his entire family loyally stood by her through immensely difficult times.
***************************************
As an entertainment journalist, Ive had the opportunity to cover Trump for over a decade, and in all my years covering him Ive never heard anything negative about the man until he announced he was running for president. Keep in mind, I got paid a lot of money to dig up dirt on celebrities like Trump for a living so a scandalous story on the famous billionaire couldve potentially sold alot of magazines and wouldve been a yuge feather in my cap. Instead, I found that he doesnt drink alcohol or do drugs, hes a hardworking businessman and totally devoted to his beloved wife and children. On top of that, hes one of the most generous celebrities in the world with a heart filled with more gold than his $100 million New York penthouse.
************************************
n 1991, 200 Marines who served in Operation Desert Storm spent time at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before they were scheduled to return home to their families. However, the Marines were told that a mistake had been made and an aircraft would not be able to take them home on their scheduled departure date. When Trump got wind of this, he sent his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami to safely return the Gulf War Marines to their loved ones.
**********************************
Courage is a virtue. Only those who have it will stand for truth, righteousness, goodness, and justice rather than capitulating to the perverse demands of evil men and women.
Anyone wanna make a bet on the sexual history of Jonah Goldberg?
Bkmk
in my experience those that harp on a particular point of character expose a personal failing they sense in themselves. people of high character usually are very generous to others who are less so. jonah is obsessed and has managed to parlay it into keeping a job for several years. his fan club is shrinking however so perhaps he is a bit panicky. in any case by his standards Oskar Schindler would not have risen to moral greatness in WWII. just sayin’
Gobbledegook.
Donald Trump's character may not be "perfect" enough for them but who's character is perfect? Who can they point to who is this vision of purity and can still drain the Swamp?
They think the man in the WH should be pure-as-driven-snow, but no president's character has ever been that good in the past. Think Clinton, Obama.
They point to Carter as someone with character that was not flawed. But even he had "lust in his heart". And look what a lousy president he turned out to be.
What they are failing to realize, that Trump is fighting for the very life of the country against democRATS and RINOs alike, who exhibit little to no character at all.
What we need at this time in our history, is a man who is flawed enough to get down and dirty with his political opposition and not be afraid to get tarnished some.
In short, we need a fighter not a saint. And that we have in PDJT.
The imperfect man at the perfect time to save our republic from the enemies within.
Jonah Goldberg, the best reason NOT to watch Fox News Sunday today.
People can be flawed but still on balance be good in character and also good at doing certain jobs, including statesman. Just because someone is not perfect does not mean one has to be against every single thing he does, like Goldberg is. Honestly, I just don’t get the Never Trumpers. They would rather see the hideous Marxist Dems triumph than endorse a flawed but talented statesman who is actually accomplishing conservative policy goals.
The fact that Trump, unlike most politicians, is working hard to accomplish his campaign promises, also demonstrates good character.
Our Framing generation recognized the difference between private and public virtue.
President Trump’s public virtue is unsurpassed.
<>There was no guarantee that storming the cockpit of government by electing Donald Trump would save us. But it was our only hope.<>
Man, that’s good. So true. The Hildebeast Jihadis were ready to murder the remains of our republic. We had better realize that unless we reform our governing institutions, the accomplishments of President Trump will eventually vanish.
Trump has more character in his left gonad than any of his detractors have ever rubbed up against in their useless, hateful, pitiful, pathetic lives.
Courage.
Excellent point.
Only Lincoln has faced the degree and depth of hatred and resistance from such a large, organized and entrenched number of people. Democrats of course then as now.
And Lincoln invaded his own country.
Exactly what bad character makes him unfit? His language? May I remind you of LBJ? He got serviced by a porn star? Marilyn Monroe anyone? Dubya was a reformed drunk and some say sniffed Cochin, Trump has never had a drink or touched drugs.
Again, what character flaws make him unfit? Others sent out young people to war, Trump wants to bring them home.
Bump!
We elected an alpha male, and some are shocked when he acts like an alpha male.
Who else, in this country, can one think of, who has the stamina and ability to stand up to all the catastrophes facing us at this time, and the people who cause them?
WHO? No one, that’s who. We are blessed to have such a man and a little twerp thinks and...he demands in a whiny voice, “we need someone with NO character flaws.”
Well, I’ll take whatever insignificant flaws our wonderful President Trump has over ANYONE ELSE. Especially Mr. Goldberg, who I wouldn’t trust or welcome in my house.
Now, we learn that our President has a heart of gold and proactively uses it.
Go form a Losers’ Club with Mr. Kristol, Jonah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.