In a president, character matters.
swdowning said 07/15, 05:13 AM
Good character is essential in a president; it is a reason that we vote for a given candidate, and it is a reason we are willing to grant a president the benefit of the doubt when the going gets tough for him.
To define the term, "character" is moral and ethical strength. It depends much more upon a person's ability to stand by his beliefs when he is under fire for those beliefs than upon whether the public agrees with his beliefs, or his policies, or his behavior.
Nixon resigned in order not to be impeached. He said later that his biggest error was that he didn't bring his own sense of ethics to the office - he took the political office where he found it. He surrendered his character.
Reagan had profound character. JFK? Maybe not so much. Clinton? Please. GWB has an abundance of character. His dad, too. Although I'm disappointed in them both, I don't question their character.
So we come to Obama and McCain. True, both have changed their positions on several issues, but I think that might actually be evidence of character rather than an indictment of it. But between them, whose character has truly been tested? It bodes well for McCain.
Character matters.
POST said 07/15, 11:43 AM
Character is no doubt very important, but as to whether its the most essential is a different matter all together. I think Integrity is what most people look at than character.
Character can easily be confused with personality and charisma, and I think personal attributes that one brings to the office remain key. Its difficult to highlight where characters of the former Presidents (you mention) added value during their terms in office, but you can tell what their integrity did to instill a sense of trust among Americans.
Integrity must mean that people can trust your word, can believe what you say, can rest assured that you will not compromise on fundamental values.
I'm sorry but Obama has lost a lot of intergrity with his twisting and turning during and post the primary season. I cannot say I know much about McCain's integrity.
Character alone, not enough.
swdowning said 07/16, 09:20 PM
I never said that character is "the most essential" element for a president, I only said that it is essential. I said that it is a reason for support, not that it is the only reason.
You have mis-characterized my position.
I think that integrity, like honesty, humility, and generosity, is an important part of character. But I think that the term "character," which includes all of those traits, is necessarily more encompassing.
I never said that character is enough, only that it matters. You have yet to refute that point.
POST said 07/19, 11:09 AM
Semantics, semantics. I think you are reducing this input to simply semantics.
Character referes basically to a person's reputation. Integrity on the other hand is about the quality of being honest and fair, the state of being whole and trustworthy, attributes that earn you honor and respect.
This is the level of cohesion we require from our President.
I think you must further characterize your position and stop crying foul.
If you don't think character is enough, why even raise this as a topic for debate. As far as I'm concerned you are just flip flopping at the realization that in fact your argument is WEAK.
I agree with Claudia Miclaus in her article "Integrity Makes Character".
She argues that, you can be trained or educated to attain characher and yet no amount of education can give you integrity. It is an inbuilt thing. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/integrity-makes-the-character.html
We require leaders who have character, but lead with integrity. I believe it is up to the electorate to zoom in to these attributes and pick a man/woman who displays high levels of integrity.
I am focussing on integrity becoz I think character without integrity is empty
swdowning said 07/20, 05:04 AM
Answers.com defines character as "moral or ethical strength," and it defines integrity as "steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code." This debate is not about the difference between the two.
My point is that character is important in a president. Integrity might be, too, but whether it is doesn't depend upon splitting hairs between definitions of "character" and "integrity."
My point is that "character matters." You have tried to say that I wrote that character is the "most essential" element we look for in a president. Now you've tried to shift the discussion to the difference between character and integrity.
When will you address the only point I've actually asserted: that character is important in a president?
I posted a challenge that "in a president, character matters." You accepted the challenge, meaning that you disagree with my statement.
Support your point. So far, you haven't done so.
POST said 07/21, 06:34 PM
SW, look at your argument and tell me if you have not reduced this "debate" into a matter of semantics, definitions etc. I bet you will not be able to advance any motivation for even raising this topic.
I maintain, your argument and your input in this so called debate is WEAK.
Its not even worth it.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Post, you need to address what sw actually wrote, love.
bobjerunkle | 07/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
Let me get this straight, swdowning; nearly every Republican president in the past 50 years had great "character" - even Nixon's obvious moral shortcomings were somehow the fault of the previous administration - and the two most popular Dems of the same period (the only ones you mention) were morally bankrupt. Do I have that right?
IamFry | 07/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
No, Fry, that's not what I intended, although I can see why you might interpret it that way. I didn't take Nixon's statement to mean that he blamed the previous administration. Rather, I think he was referring to the way in which presidential politics had evolved over the course of U.S. history. Political climates change, and Nixon isn't the only one to assume that, since other politicians had had more leeway (or less public scrutiny) that he needn't feel bound by character considerations. Gary Hart made the same mistake in 1988. Also, I said that Nixon surrendered his character. For the record, I think Carter had great character, as did Truman, both Democrats. Perceived reasonably, IamFry, character knows no partisan boundaries.
swdowning | 07/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
My bet is that Post forfeits...again. 3 to 1. Any takers?
bobjerunkle | 07/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
GF, I differ. These are two distinct attributes. Character can be developed through experience, wisdom and other tools, yet Integrity is who a person is about, his good standing and trustworthyness, level of completion, honor and principle. However, I dont want to argue semantics really.
POST | 07/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
Seriously, what is character without the most fundamental aspect of life, integrity. You may not be in a position to protect character even when it's facing severe attack, but integrity is just all you have, you are forced to defend it with all you have. Character is just an element of integrity and that is what our politicians tend to confuse. I go with POST.
FrankJ | 07/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
Frank, I'm not saying that integrity isn't important; and if my original challenge had been "character is more important than integrity in a president," then I would have to agree with you. I would also have to accept that definitional and connotative differences between the two words are valid reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with my challenge. Sadly, that is not the case. The only topic on the table is this: Does character matter in a president? That's the only question. Not whether it's the most important element, not what the difference is between "character" and "integrity." Only whether character is important in a president.
swdowning | 07/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
Reagan had profound character?? He was an insidious dotard who happened to be a great salesman.
IamFry | 07/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
GF's first comment was exactly what I was going to post, after reading this debate so far: Isn't integrity a quality/indication of character (or lack thereof)? Especially based on the definition SWD provided in the constructive/opening argument (moral and ethical strength).
USA Pit Bull 63 | 07/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
It's like someone saying, "Fruit is what's best for one's health." And someone countering with, "Fruit is important, but apples are most important for one's health."
USA Pit Bull 63 | 07/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
IamFry: Which presidents had good character, while interesting, isn't the issue here. The only question is this: Is character important in a president? Its a simple question - actually a "yes/no" question - that neither you nor POST has answered. The attempts to change the subject and to expand the scope of my original statement are amusing, but not germane. Once again, the statement we are debating is "In a president, character matters."
swdowning | 07/20/08
Report Offensive Comment
Post, it wasn't intentionally a personal attack, but if the shoe fits... It's just that, since you've forfeited three times, I thought it a safe bet. swdowning: I think you could have done better, mate. Why fall back on definitions from answers.com? A stronger case, from a more respected reference, can be made. The OED defines integrity in the current, moral sense as "soundness of moral principle; the character of uncorrupted virtue, esp. in relation to truth and fair dealing; uprightness, honesty, sincerity." It defines character as "The sum of the moral and mental qualities that distinguish an individual..." and "Moral qualities strongly developed or strikingly displayed..." The key term in this is "the sum," referring to character. Clearly the OED considers integrity to be a subcategory of character. That said, you're right, swdowning: the question at stake isn't about the difference between "integrity" and "character"; the question is about the importance of character in a president. Post, your approach to this topic is, sadly, not surprising, and, to me, not as amusing as it is to swdowning. Trying to reframe the original question, and when that fails, trying to argue on definitional terms are ploys unfortunately characteristic of the left. That is, they reflect poorly on the character of the left. Perhaps this is why you reflexively object to swdowning's original statement.
bobjerunkle | 07/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Also, Post, you told FrankJ that his point was"on topic"? Excuse me, love, but who are you to determine whether a comment is on topic? You, who have tried to change the topic without ever addressing it. That you're motivated to shift the debate is axiomaticuntil you truly apply yourself to the question at hand, your motives are suspect. Frank, your comment is a distraction, an attempt to recast the point of discussion, and not "on point" at all.
bobjerunkle | 07/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Bob, I seriously hoped that this site had finally rid itself of elements like you. I don't think that attacking people and not their arguments is helping anyone. I'm certain you won't agree.
POST | 07/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
SW, with that kind of general statement, tabled as a debate topic, I clearly tried to raise other attributes that I know to be more basic and important than your "character" soapy. I hope you did not expect me to say Yes/No. I accepted your challenge because I believed that you might be missing an important point on Integrity.
POST | 07/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
POST - You're the one who introduced the question of the difference between "character" and "integrity." It was you who tried to shift the debate to the semantic. And now you accuse me of trying to reduce the debate to semantics? I have resisted your efforts to do so since your first post. If my argument isn't framed exactly as you would have framed it, so what? Deal with my initial statement. When you accept a challenge, it's not your job to rephrase the initial premise, or to point out from your lofty coign of vantage what the challenger might have missed. It's not your job to improve it; it's your job to take it at face value and debate it on the author's terms - not on your own terms. But please don't debase this experiment by trying to shift the issue to definitional differences and then accusing the original poster of engaging in semantics, and using this juvenile tactic to claim that you have successfully refuted the original point. You haven't.
rayzhyudicada | 07/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Post A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
"Integrity" is a facet of Character. You can't say, "He's a man of good character, but you can't trust him." Character, with all it's components, is vital in who we choose to lead us.
GenialFascist | 07/15/08
Report Offensive Comment