"Authority" derives etymologically from the Latin "auctor" which means originator or giver of life. So, one invested with authority at any level is endowed with powers and responsibilities to "give life" to the particular group. The authority implements and personally represents the common good, material and moral. Obvious here is the connection between authority and paternity as both entail initiation, authorship, protection and provision. The authority represents transcendent moral/spiritual realities beyond himself so that authority implies a certain spiritual excellence, distance, elevation. Obviously, paternity is more coherent with such distance than maternity with its greater intimacy. And so authority is mutually informing of virility and paternity; more than femininity and maternity. The presidency of a nation is an especially clear figure of authority and paternity. This is not to say that a woman cannot be president. But is to see that the continuing national reluctance to elect a woman is not entirely ignorant, malicious misogyny, but in part a valid moral intuition.
The authority implements the common good but also represents it in his (her) person. This is the symbolic function. Symbolic here refers to the etymological meaning "to draw together." This is the opposite of the "diabolical" as "tearing apart." So the authority draws the community together in pursuit of the common good, in what he does as well as who he is.
Some clarifications before we evaluate our presidents.
Public vs. Private Morality. These two are distinct, but by no means entirely separate. They mutually indwell each other. If a man cheats on his wife and his taxes I hesitate to put him in charge of nuclear weapons. But in a politician or statesman we are not looking for personal purity or sanctity, but representation of the public good. For example, it now seems evident that Franklin and Eleanor agreed to an "open marriage" that does not meet the normal bar for monogamous fidelity. But it was a discrete affair. If they organized "open marriage pride" parades, months and rainbows it would be different. More importantly: they are an incomparable couple in terms of their service to the nation. That private imperfection does not detract from his greatness as president. On the other hand, JFK's infidelities, also secret at the time, viewed in light of the Kennedy legacy that was to come, the Sexual Revolution and its toll on society, constitute a grave deficiency in moral leadership.
Other Aspects of the Presidency include managerial competence, wise policy, and personal charm and appeal. These are likewise distinct from moral embodiment but not separate as they interpenetrate each other. Eichmann was an excellent administrator, implementing an evil policy very well. Advocacy of a policy of ethnic cleansing, for example of the unborn, indicates a moral depravity. Personal charism and charm enhance the power of a good role model. Kennedy and Nixon exemplify this in contrasting directions. Carter's impressive moral integrity and high intelligence were diminished in moral influence by his lack of charism and perceived strength.
My Strong Catholic pre-judgements need to be evident: as an urban, ethnic, working class Catholic I have problems with both parties. From my youth/childhood I retain a belief that Republicans serve the rich and care little for the poor and working class. This claim remains true: the culturally populist Trump shows in his tax policies of both administrations that he protects the interests of investors and adheres to the "trickle down theory." On the other hand, all Democratic presidents since 1970 are pro-legal-abortion. Every Republican loses at least 10 points; every Democrat (post 1970) at least 30 points at the start. Another factor leading to a nonpartisan viewpoint is acceptance of Catholic Social Doctrine, in its depth and complexity, which allows for accepting good policy from any party and a detachment from partisan passions.
We will distinguish four ratings: very strong, adequate with deficiencies, inadequate with some strengths, very weak.
Honor Roll: Very Strong Exemplars
FDR 95%.
Eisenhower 90
Truman 90
Ronald Reagan 90
L.B. Johnson 90
Adequate, with Some Deficiencies
JFK 85
G. Ford 85
G.H. Bush 85
G.W. Bush 85
Inadequate, With Some Strengths
R. Nixon 70
J. Carter 65
B. Obama 65
Dishonor Roll: Corrupting Influence on Nation
B. Clinton 60
D.J. Trump 50
J. Biden 40
Average score of the eight Democrats: 76. Average score of seven Republicans: 82.
Average score of earliest five: 90. Average score of middle five: 79. Average score of recent five: 60.
The lower score for Democrats reflects the support of abortion by the last four presidents.
Starting with Clinton we see a steep decline. Clinton/Trump/Biden are all children of the Sexual Revolution.
Clinton's catastrophe was not his dalliance itself as much as what followed. Had he candidly, humbly admitted moral failure and graciously resigned he would be remembered with respect. Rather, he narcissistically, righteously defended himself; the Democratic Party rallied behind him; and so this vile quasi-incestuous abuse of authority was dismissed in public opinion as inconsequential. Trump is not possible without Clinton.
Trump is complicated, ambiguous. Fleckinstein has said enough about him in prior posts. But as we process the Kirk assassination, we note the "diabolic"...in the etymological sense of "tear apart"...influence of Trump in polarizing the nation.
Biden is a very low bottom: abandonment of his own granddaughter, betrayal of his Catholic faith, spineless mimesis of whatever is fashionable, narcissistic denial of cognitive decline, lack of any moral core.
What is evident: the moral character of our nation has been debased by recent Presidents, especially starting with Clinton. This is nonpartisan. These recent men are themselves fruits of moral decadence even as they themselves intensify the decline.
We do well to in some measure detach from partisan loyalty, so pronounced is the moral depravity in both camps.
No comments:
Post a Comment