We have been duped into viewing politicians as royalty when our Founders intended them to be only temp public servants. Complaints @realDonaldTrump is not “presidential” are because he acts like one of us-exactly why our Founders fought in Rev War to win independence from royalty
— Jerry Falwell (@JerryFalwellJr) August 16, 2018
Yesterday, Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, Jr. Tweeted out the following:
“We have been duped into viewing politicians as royalty when our Founders intended them to be only temp public servants. Complaints @realDonaldTrump is not “presidential” are because he acts like one of us-exactly why our Founders fought in Rev War to win independence from royalty.”
Setting aside, for the moment, the hysterical hypocrisy of the son of Jerry Falwell (founder of the Moral Majority) arguing that character is unimportant for a president, it is worth asking ourselves how important character is for our politicians, especially the president. Ever since Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton became the nominees of their respective parties, questions about character may seem somewhat quaint and moot. Regardless, it is a fundamental and foundational question for republican governance that is still important and must be examined. Let us first look at Falwell’s claim and the logic he presents before broadening the scope.
First, Falwell claims that Americans have been “duped into viewing politicians as royalty, when our Founders intended them to be only temp public servants.” The claim about the Founders’ intentions for political careers is mostly true, but if Americans view politicians as “royalty,” the fault is not with those who demand high standards of conduct from their leaders. Consider that America has one true royal family, the Kennedys, whose prominent leaders (Jack, Bobby, and Ted) were all known to be womanizers and worse. Sure, they had some redeeming qualities, but not nearly enough to argue that they were somehow too virtuous for their offices. Of America’s three other royal families- the Bushes, Clintons, and Trumps, only the Bushes can credibly claim to be a family of mostly virtuous members. So, whatever the merits of claiming that Americans have been duped into viewing politicians as royalty, it is ridiculous to try and connect that with demanding high standards of conduct from our public servants.
Second, Falwell claims that Donald Trump “is not ‘presidential’… because he acts like one us.” Firstly, the claim is patently ridiculous. Trump has lived a playboy lifestyle of luxury and vice that 99% of Americans will never come close to experiencing. Secondly, Falwell must really take a dim view of his fellow man if he believes that the average American is as boorish, immature, and insecure as Trump acts in public. Thirdly, the office of the presidency is supposed to be held by someone “to whom so important a trust can be confided…characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue” (Federalist 68). In other words, the office of the presidency is supposed to be held by persons who are more worthy of their station than the average Joe. The very existence of the Electoral College was supposed to be a safeguard against electing dim-witted commoners or dangerous demagogues. The electors were supposed to be an independent group of well-educated citizens who would select the man they judged to be the ablest, most virtuous, and most distinguished for the job. This is not an endorsement of monarchy or royalism, but rather the finest expression of republican governance that the leader selected indirectly by the people be the one most worthy of it. “Acting like one of us” is exactly what the Founders wanted to avoid, otherwise they would have made the process more democratic.
Finally, Falwell claims that the Founders fought the revolution to break away from royalty. This, by itself, is plainly true, however, he critically misapplies it to those who demand high character from the president. The quintessential example is President Washington- a man who modeled his life after the classical example of republican virtues, Cincinnatus. Washington, who could have ruled as an elected monarch, destroyed American prospects for a monarchy by ruling as the purest example of a virtuous republican leader. Washington was a man who lived and died by public approval of his actions. Ergo, he exercised consistent restraint all the time and did nothing that would appear to be at odds with his commitment to classical republicanism. He never lashed out at his critics (and there were some, despite his universal popularity, particularly after John Jay returned from England with a neutrality treaty that half the country despised) and did everything he could to be free of scandal and impropriety. So, while Falwell may try to connect demands for high character with royalty, the truth is actually the opposite of what he claims: good character is key to self-governance.
And that leads us to the broader question of how important character is for self-governance. Obviously, no person is perfect (as all of human history teaches us), but that does not mean that we just have to accept a Hobbesian state of nature where everyone is evil and liable to kill each other. Hence, we have erected a system of self-governance that does not demand perfection, but crumbles without principles.
Our system, conceived and constructed by James Madison, succeeds and thrives in one of two ways: first, it can be populated by the kind of public servants that the Founders envisioned and Falwell, himself, claims to want- presidents and politicians who are committed to the public good, place country over self, and have the experience and wisdom necessary to truly represent the interests of their constituents. This would protect the American people from factions and the rise of demagogic tyrants who use the power of government to benefit themselves.
The second way is a safeguard against the breakdown of the first way. Recognizing that man is inherently flawed and must be restrained in order to protect the liberty of others, Madison’s system divided power and set the ambitions and vices of men against each other. The interests of the many would be enough to neutralize the concentrated interests of the few, or so he reasoned. Congress could impeach the president, the judiciary could strike down laws, the president can veto bills, and so on. But even this system that constrains the ability of evildoers to act, some measure of virtue is still required- the other actors in the system must be willing to exercise their power to check other actors who are acting in bad faith.
America’s (quick) descent into parties has made it far easier for demagogues to circumvent the Madisonian safeguards. Demagogues buoyed by majority support can harm the liberty of minorities without recourse. The Electoral College is no longer an independent body of statesmen, but rather a body of partisan creatures whose votes are entirely dictated by the popular outcome of their state. Ergo, the check against the masses has disappeared, and therefore, a crucial check against the election of a demagogue.
Virtue, therefore, is critically important for self-governance as the Madisonian safeguards fail. If the leaders are of good character and are committed to be the kind of virtuous, selfless leaders the Founders envisioned, the Madisonian safeguards are not necessary. And yes, the Madisonian safeguards exist for situations when our leaders fail to live up to this ideal. But they utterly fail when there is no character or virtue among our leaders, such as cases when party trumps country. Elect statesmen and our constitutional republic functions well; elect demagogues and America will descend into tyranny.
Jerry Falwell, Jr., therefore, is completely and utterly wrong. While it is true that the Founders detested monarchy and fought a revolution to overthrow it, they did not want a system where the president acts like “one of us.” They wanted a virtuous republican statesman who conducted himself with the maturity and gravitas the position required. Donald Trump does not do this. He is the embodiment of the kind of “man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. [A man with] Talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity…” His conduct, particularly on Twitter, is more akin to a conspiracy theorist or immature teenager than to the kind of president that the Founders created. Virtuous presidents make the safeguards less necessary, and the safeguards, themselves, are not foolproof when there is little virtue to be found in our leaders. Character and virtue are not traits of royalty, but rather fundamental pillars for the success of republican self-governance.
*PS: I would like to believe that the first Jerry Falwell would be utterly ashamed of his son and his son’s unbelievably sycophantic behavior towards the president. Donald Trump’s adulterous past, alone, should have been sufficient for the heir to the “Moral Majority” to reject him and any kind of alliance with him (to say nothing of Trump’s vanity, materialism, boorishness and pride, as well as the allegations of sexual abuse made against him). Instead, Falwell not only ignores such behavior, but promotes Trump as the greatest thing to ever happen to the Religious Right. His rejection of the notion that our leaders need to be of good moral character is a complete rejection of the idea of the Moral Majority. Junior’s message elevates politics and policy outcomes above any other consideration- religious, moral, or otherwise. Both he and Franklin Graham have been advancing this idolatrous view of politics that is very much at odds with the messages of their fathers.
“We have been duped into viewing politicians as royalty when our Founders intended them to be only temp public servants. Complaints @realDonaldTrump is not “presidential” are because he acts like one of us-exactly why our Founders fought in Rev War to win independence from royalty.”
Setting aside, for the moment, the hysterical hypocrisy of the son of Jerry Falwell (founder of the Moral Majority) arguing that character is unimportant for a president, it is worth asking ourselves how important character is for our politicians, especially the president. Ever since Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton became the nominees of their respective parties, questions about character may seem somewhat quaint and moot. Regardless, it is a fundamental and foundational question for republican governance that is still important and must be examined. Let us first look at Falwell’s claim and the logic he presents before broadening the scope.
First, Falwell claims that Americans have been “duped into viewing politicians as royalty, when our Founders intended them to be only temp public servants.” The claim about the Founders’ intentions for political careers is mostly true, but if Americans view politicians as “royalty,” the fault is not with those who demand high standards of conduct from their leaders. Consider that America has one true royal family, the Kennedys, whose prominent leaders (Jack, Bobby, and Ted) were all known to be womanizers and worse. Sure, they had some redeeming qualities, but not nearly enough to argue that they were somehow too virtuous for their offices. Of America’s three other royal families- the Bushes, Clintons, and Trumps, only the Bushes can credibly claim to be a family of mostly virtuous members. So, whatever the merits of claiming that Americans have been duped into viewing politicians as royalty, it is ridiculous to try and connect that with demanding high standards of conduct from our public servants.
Second, Falwell claims that Donald Trump “is not ‘presidential’… because he acts like one us.” Firstly, the claim is patently ridiculous. Trump has lived a playboy lifestyle of luxury and vice that 99% of Americans will never come close to experiencing. Secondly, Falwell must really take a dim view of his fellow man if he believes that the average American is as boorish, immature, and insecure as Trump acts in public. Thirdly, the office of the presidency is supposed to be held by someone “to whom so important a trust can be confided…characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue” (Federalist 68). In other words, the office of the presidency is supposed to be held by persons who are more worthy of their station than the average Joe. The very existence of the Electoral College was supposed to be a safeguard against electing dim-witted commoners or dangerous demagogues. The electors were supposed to be an independent group of well-educated citizens who would select the man they judged to be the ablest, most virtuous, and most distinguished for the job. This is not an endorsement of monarchy or royalism, but rather the finest expression of republican governance that the leader selected indirectly by the people be the one most worthy of it. “Acting like one of us” is exactly what the Founders wanted to avoid, otherwise they would have made the process more democratic.
Finally, Falwell claims that the Founders fought the revolution to break away from royalty. This, by itself, is plainly true, however, he critically misapplies it to those who demand high character from the president. The quintessential example is President Washington- a man who modeled his life after the classical example of republican virtues, Cincinnatus. Washington, who could have ruled as an elected monarch, destroyed American prospects for a monarchy by ruling as the purest example of a virtuous republican leader. Washington was a man who lived and died by public approval of his actions. Ergo, he exercised consistent restraint all the time and did nothing that would appear to be at odds with his commitment to classical republicanism. He never lashed out at his critics (and there were some, despite his universal popularity, particularly after John Jay returned from England with a neutrality treaty that half the country despised) and did everything he could to be free of scandal and impropriety. So, while Falwell may try to connect demands for high character with royalty, the truth is actually the opposite of what he claims: good character is key to self-governance.
And that leads us to the broader question of how important character is for self-governance. Obviously, no person is perfect (as all of human history teaches us), but that does not mean that we just have to accept a Hobbesian state of nature where everyone is evil and liable to kill each other. Hence, we have erected a system of self-governance that does not demand perfection, but crumbles without principles.
Our system, conceived and constructed by James Madison, succeeds and thrives in one of two ways: first, it can be populated by the kind of public servants that the Founders envisioned and Falwell, himself, claims to want- presidents and politicians who are committed to the public good, place country over self, and have the experience and wisdom necessary to truly represent the interests of their constituents. This would protect the American people from factions and the rise of demagogic tyrants who use the power of government to benefit themselves.
The second way is a safeguard against the breakdown of the first way. Recognizing that man is inherently flawed and must be restrained in order to protect the liberty of others, Madison’s system divided power and set the ambitions and vices of men against each other. The interests of the many would be enough to neutralize the concentrated interests of the few, or so he reasoned. Congress could impeach the president, the judiciary could strike down laws, the president can veto bills, and so on. But even this system that constrains the ability of evildoers to act, some measure of virtue is still required- the other actors in the system must be willing to exercise their power to check other actors who are acting in bad faith.
America’s (quick) descent into parties has made it far easier for demagogues to circumvent the Madisonian safeguards. Demagogues buoyed by majority support can harm the liberty of minorities without recourse. The Electoral College is no longer an independent body of statesmen, but rather a body of partisan creatures whose votes are entirely dictated by the popular outcome of their state. Ergo, the check against the masses has disappeared, and therefore, a crucial check against the election of a demagogue.
Virtue, therefore, is critically important for self-governance as the Madisonian safeguards fail. If the leaders are of good character and are committed to be the kind of virtuous, selfless leaders the Founders envisioned, the Madisonian safeguards are not necessary. And yes, the Madisonian safeguards exist for situations when our leaders fail to live up to this ideal. But they utterly fail when there is no character or virtue among our leaders, such as cases when party trumps country. Elect statesmen and our constitutional republic functions well; elect demagogues and America will descend into tyranny.
Jerry Falwell, Jr., therefore, is completely and utterly wrong. While it is true that the Founders detested monarchy and fought a revolution to overthrow it, they did not want a system where the president acts like “one of us.” They wanted a virtuous republican statesman who conducted himself with the maturity and gravitas the position required. Donald Trump does not do this. He is the embodiment of the kind of “man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. [A man with] Talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity…” His conduct, particularly on Twitter, is more akin to a conspiracy theorist or immature teenager than to the kind of president that the Founders created. Virtuous presidents make the safeguards less necessary, and the safeguards, themselves, are not foolproof when there is little virtue to be found in our leaders. Character and virtue are not traits of royalty, but rather fundamental pillars for the success of republican self-governance.
*PS: I would like to believe that the first Jerry Falwell would be utterly ashamed of his son and his son’s unbelievably sycophantic behavior towards the president. Donald Trump’s adulterous past, alone, should have been sufficient for the heir to the “Moral Majority” to reject him and any kind of alliance with him (to say nothing of Trump’s vanity, materialism, boorishness and pride, as well as the allegations of sexual abuse made against him). Instead, Falwell not only ignores such behavior, but promotes Trump as the greatest thing to ever happen to the Religious Right. His rejection of the notion that our leaders need to be of good moral character is a complete rejection of the idea of the Moral Majority. Junior’s message elevates politics and policy outcomes above any other consideration- religious, moral, or otherwise. Both he and Franklin Graham have been advancing this idolatrous view of politics that is very much at odds with the messages of their fathers.
RSS Feed
