people in politics often speak of character in the wrong contexts. for example, bill clinton has bad character; we know this because he had extramarital sex with an intern. gary hart and gary condit and even jesse jackson had or have "bad character." i appreciate that being dishonest about one's sex life or other personal dealings is a sign of bad character. in many situations, i'd agree that having an extramarital affair automatically evidences bad or at least questionable character. somehow, though, republicans have usually avoided the 'character debate,' often by regaling us with tales of their moral superiority--abstinence only 'sex ed,' anti-choice policies, 'family values,' and, your favorite and mine, 'faith-based charity.'

it always irks me that moral choices involving the lives of millions aren't subject to the character debate, while moral choices about having sex are its main currency. for example, i think the character of just about everyone in the bush administration is suspect owing to its remorseless and cynical hawkishness. now paul krugman says something similar about the administration's handling of the economy. a choice paragraph:

"Economics aside, the administration's ever-changing rationale for tax cuts says a lot about its character. If the Bush team never cared about deficits, Mr. Bush's promises of fiscal responsibility were dishonest. On the other hand, if administration officials didn't decide that deficits are O.K. until that belief became convenient, that suggests that they're tough talkers who make excuses when confronted with real problems. That's a scary thought; is this the kind of administration that would, say, call North Korea names and talk about pre-emptive war, but back down and offer aid when the country actually threatens to restart its nuclear program? Nah, couldn't happen."

'character' has been catching my eye in a variety of contexts lately, mainly because of the way its importance was hammered into me while i studied aristotle last semester. character is vital to any vocation: you can't be a good friend, or a good teacher, or a good doctor, if you aren't a person of good character. being a person of good character does, in fact, involve things like personal sexual morality. more importantly, being a doctor, or teacher, or politician, of good character involves genuine good will for all the people you serve in that role. so why aren't we having that 'character debate?'