|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In America, political stewardship has traditionally meant more than wielding power; it was about embodying core principles — a deep-rooted commitment to values woven into our founding documents, upheld by the moral character of those sworn to defend them.
Today, however, the Republican Party has stripped away any pretense that virtues like honesty, dignity, and courage still matter. Winning has become the only goal, with power, not principle, as the guiding star.
Ronald Reagan, once the conservative lodestar, warned of this descent. He said, “The character that takes command in moments of crucial choices has already been determined by a thousand other choices made earlier in seemingly unimportant moments.” To Reagan, character was the cumulative result of small, often unseen decisions. Long before a leader assumes office, they are tested in the quiet recesses of their inner life. For him, integrity and moral courage were non-negotiable prerequisites for leading a nation.
Similarly, Russell Kirk, a founding figure in modern American conservatism, held that character forms the foundation of individuals and society alike. Kirk believed that a society grounded in strong moral principles, tradition, and personal integrity could withstand any storm, fostering community and promoting the common good. His advocacy for the “moral imagination” — the capacity to see beyond self-interest to the broader ethical implications of one’s actions — underscored his vision. “Without the moral imagination,” Kirk warned, “we are left only with a vulgar utilitarianism, devoid of any higher purpose or noble ideal.”
These conservative icons didn’t view character as abstract; they saw it as the essence of true leadership. They understood that a leader without a moral foundation would inevitably fail the people, just as a nation without moral leaders would lose its way.
The moral stance of the Southern Baptist Convention during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal in 1998 further illustrates this point. Five months after the scandal, the SBC issued a resolution stressing the need for “moral character in public officials,” warning that “Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness, and surely results in God’s judgment.” This call for moral integrity, drawn from 1 Timothy 4 — where Paul warns of those with “consciences seared with a hot iron” — echoes today. What happens when a political movement turns from its moral compass? What does it say about its true intentions?
The GOP now often rallies behind figures who lack self-restraint — leaders who seem unbound by any moral guardrails, driven by ambition unmoored from the “permanent things” Kirk spoke of: justice, order, charity. Such individuals have sacrificed these principles for personal gain, abandoning the higher calling of leadership for the hollow satisfaction of power.
As the first president of the United States, George Washington held character and honesty above all, viewing them as essential to his role and legacy. In a letter to Alexander Hamilton, he declared, “I trust that my conduct will never show me to be false to my principles,” underscoring his unwavering commitment to integrity. Similarly, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he expressed his desire to maintain “the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” For Washington, character was not just a personal virtue but the bedrock of trustworthy leadership.
This erosion of values prompts us to ask: where does it lead? How can those who claim to represent the American people also renounce the virtues that sustained us through trials and triumphs? And what does this abandonment mean for the future of a once-storied political movement?
In these times, we need citizens who believe in the permanence of character, integrity, and principle to demand more from those who seek to lead. We cannot let a tradition of political stewardship be reduced to a mere vehicle for ambition and power. We, the people, must hold leaders accountable —not just for their policies, but for the character they display both publicly and privately.
As Reagan and Kirk reminded us, true leadership lies in moral courage and loyalty to enduring principles over fleeting gains. We need leaders who will put principle above politics and remember that their highest duty is to serve the nation, not their careers. If we are to preserve our shared future, we must demand nothing less.
It’s time to make character matter again.
