Volume 4, Issue 40
No one running for President.
There is a morning at the end of every summer when you can feel the change in the temperature indicating that fall is near. Summer is not over, but its days are numbered. That metaphorical morning in this election cycle occurred sometime last week when both candidates doubled down on criticized statements. In the most recent Presidential debate, neither candidate stood on principle, but rather on policy. There was some discussion of tax reform, attracting corporate America to come back home, and then forcing them to stay; government dictated parental leave and equalization of salaries; and personal attacks on tax returns and missing emails. But very little was offered to aid the American electorate in their decision making process on whom in character to trust. Both candidates are disliked and perceived to have flawed character. Neither has done anything to advance a principled vision. Both have pursued a strategy to destroy the other. Each candidate has lacked the courage to take a stand on a definition of freedom, with the confidence of leadership that those who agree with that definition will follow.
Without confidence in the vision of a leader, dutiful citizens are left to their own means to determine the likelihood of the outcome of leadership leavened by flawed character. America seeks a positive determination of government programs based upon an individual’s values. We have been hoping against hope that a leader would emerge who defined morality as an effort of joint pursuit, rather than a division of competing elements of society. We are left without such a vision. This prolonged disappointment has left America in a melancholy state.
In watching the video replay, it is easy to see that she was struggling with the answer. Her mind was working through the sequence of outrageous comments and demeanor of Donald Trump with which she has had to deal as a Republican candidate in this cycle. Her opponent and the press immediately seized on the comment after the debate. Later last night, Senator Ayotte felt compelled to issue the following statement:
I misspoke tonight. While I would hope all of our children would aspire to be president, neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton have set a good example and I wouldn’t hold up either of them as role models for my kids.
Think about this. Simply saying that someone might be a role model becomes a political liability. Many of us feel rudderless and politically abandoned in that character has always been an important component in our decision making process for choosing leadership. Like Senator Ayotte, we struggle mightily in our desire to advance democracy through principled leadership when the normal attributes of character are absent.
In the history of the United States, we have never been faced with such adversity, the contretemps of being faced with the dilemma of leadership without character. In every great crisis in America, from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War, from the Great Depression to the Civil Rights Movement, there was leadership with character. Character based upon timeless principles of freedom, God given rights, and limited government. With principled character of leadership, an individual can make his or her personal choice about the moral turpitude of the circumstances at hand, confident that in the process and protocol of democracy, he or she who leads will hold righteousness as their standard.
Citizens are left today to make a decision on who to vote for President based upon an imprecise, awkward calculation. This involves weighing which flawed candidate would, by their actions or through the inherent foundational stability of the American culture on its own, produce the best outcome for the citizen’s point of view.
We long for someone who would not just make America first, but defend the principles which define us as a culture. We long for a leader who would guide us in a common quest for a historical identity, a purpose in which we can all take a stake. And we long for a leader with the humility to believe that we American citizens have the intellect to participate in this pursuit of generational dignity.
Recently the citizens of the U.K. voted to leave the European Union (EU). The new Prime Minister, Theresa May, said, “Let me be clear: we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration again, we are going to be a fully independent, sovereign country – a country that is no longer part of a political union with supernational institutions that can override national parliaments and courts.” In other words, she is one with the citizens in defending the sovereign will of the British people. She is providing confidence in leadership that the principles of Great Britain are worth defending. And, in this defense, the people have a common identity, culture, and pursuit of morality that is not in conflict with other nations, but found in their collective sovereignty.
We as Americans must face the reality that a majority of us will not be confident in the character of our next President of the United States. Yet we must participate in the process and vote, or we cast our future to the fate of ill winds. Our children deserve better. Their future depends upon our decisions. Therefore, we must cast our vote for President based upon principles that we hold inviolate, a future we seek to secure through local government, and a definition of freedom that sounds a responsive chord in our innermost feelings of righteousness.
To escape this dissonant, melancholy national mood, we must accept the reality of the situation. We must vote for our own individual, principled vision, and we must do so believing in the inherent good of American freedom and its exceptionalism.
American values are worth defending.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?