Trump Actually Is Virtuous—Where it Counts

It’s no secret that the American polity really doesn’t care about, nor does it fully understand, the role or demands of classical virtue—and that it hasn’t for a very long time. But many, especially (and hypocritically) those who derive an unhealthy thrill from scorning, mocking, and deriding any and all expressions of traditional virtue, are absolutely certain of one thing: President Trump emphatically is neither a virtuous man nor a virtuous president.

I think they are right he is not a virtuous man. But I also think that’s not a terribly relevant observation. Why?

Because the country (at their behest!) decided in 1998 that personal virtue was largely irrelevant to being president when it gave Bill Clinton a pass for exploiting his immense power to initiate an extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky, a twentysomething White House intern and then lied about it after having been caught.

For better or worse, personal virtue is no longer a make-or-break factor in electing the leader of the free world. (It probably should be, but it can’t be so only for one party.)

Instead, the question before us is whether President Trump a virtuous political leader?

I think it’s obvious that he is one, and the rally where he supposedly “mocked” Christine Blasey Ford is instructive for understanding why.

Many Trump skeptics and NeverTrumpers insist their opposition to the president stems in (large) part from what they see as his clear lack of virtue, and his “mocking” of Ford is, for them and many others, a clear example of that personal viciousness. But that’s just wrong; such people are erroneously conflating personal virtue with public, political virtue. It would of course be helpful and good if the two were coextensive, but it’s obvious in America today they are not and maybe cannot be. So, what to do?

Recognize that the American people go to the ballot box to elect representatives who will advance their interests and secure their natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; they elect leaders who swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” They do not elevate churchmen or popes to leadership positions; those they send to halls of power are public servants who can be voted out and are always subject to We the People—not God’s anointed, unaccountable and above us.

The president’s supporters (many newly “red-pilled” by l’affaire Kavanaugh) see the biases and extreme prejudices of the radical, social justice-obsessed progressive Left, as well as their contempt for our institutions—abolish the Supreme Court! (or is it “pack the Supreme Court”?) abolish the Electoral College! abolish the Senate!—and they rightly recognize that certain kinds of leaders are needed at this hour in the life of the republic if it is to endure. Namely, leaders who recognize and respect America’s traditions, the political principles upon which the nation stands, and its interests, both foreign and domestic—and leaders who will vigorously defend all of these things against assault and destruction.

Political virtue, then, is when a politician, though perhaps personally flawed, stands up for the common good of his country and resists factions and tribalization with all his might; such virtue might indeed be somewhat minimalist and require an over-accentuation of one or multiple of the virtues (in this moment, I’d say courage is badly needed); it might even appear to be vice, especially if the broader society has for decades relentlessly mocked and undermined virtue-in-the-broadest-possible-sense—i.e., the Aristotelian-Christian vision of virtue.

Political virtue is what President Trump showed during the entirety of the coordinated Kavanaugh character assassination campaign and especially at the October 3 rally. Recognizing that the Left had inaugurated new and entirely wicked rules, President Trump adapted in defense of his nominee. Rather than take the attacks as one who was meek and supine, he roused himself to stand firm in the bully pulpit and brought attention to the inconsistencies and inaccuracies in Ford’s account of her alleged encounter with Kavanaugh in high school 36 years ago.

Unless one believes every woman’s rendition of something is God’s unadorned truth, this behavior was right and just and exactly what was demanded of the president in that moment. It took courage to buck the current fad (really a “mania”)—“believe all women”—and rally Kavanaugh’s shell-shocked and timid supporters—and probably Kavanaugh himself.

Was it abrasive? Shocking? Bold to the point of being brash? Sure. But it was necessary. In a world where common norms and institutional integrity are undermined, a world where there is no longer a shared vision of the good life, Trump exercised his basic, natural right of self-defense on behalf of Kavanaugh, who himself was brawling “in that part of the state of nature known as a confirmation hearing.” He acted with virtue, rightly understood.

If it is immoral or wrong or “unvirtuous” to stand up for a good man and jurist (and his family) in the face of an unprecedented smear campaign of personal destruction, or to argue strenuously for the spirit of due process, or to fight tooth and nail for an outcome that certainly would benefit the common good (catalyzing the Supreme Court’s self-diminishment, which is something originalist judges secure), then I don’t want to be that kind of “virtuous.” And neither should any person who sincerely cares about virtue.

Thankfully, President Trump understands what virtue truly demands of him as a political leader in this present moment. And that’s what matters—not whether he himself personally meets the requirements of his often confused and frequently self-righteous critics, whether they be on the Left or the NeverTrump Right.

“I think they are right he is not a virtuous man. But I also think that’s not a terribly relevant observation. Why?”

The author of this lengthy article provides no argument at all in support of the notion that Trump is not a virtuous man.

Instead, the article makes the partly valid argument that the American people don’t care whether or not a POTUS is a virtuous man, as demostrated by the fact that Bill Clinton was reelected after being exposed as a serial rapist.

Why is it a partly valid argument? Because not all of the American people were willing to overlook the fact that Clinton’s was a serial rapist - only those who voted for him. Those of us who voted against him (a substantial majority, by the way) cared plenty.

But the recent character assassination of Justice Bret Kavanaugh should remind us that not all allegations are true. The Left does orchestrate false narratives against the right, and they have no shame - their politics of destruction know no bounds. There is no depth to which they will not sink.

Obviously, Trump being a wealthy celebrity and being elected as a Republican would make him the target of an endless list of gold diggers and Leftist political assassins. Anyone could have predicted that.

Even with unproven allegations of affairs, payoffs, and a widely misinterpreted tape of Trump’s “locker room banter” - there is no indication that Trump is lacking in virtue. When I listen to the tape, I hear a wealthy celebrity stating a known fact: namely, that when you are a wealthy celebrity, women will let you grab them by the pu$$y. He’s not saying he took advantage of that fact - he’s only saying the opportunity is there - and even if he did, is not the behavior being described consensual?

When I consider whether Trump is lacking in virtue, I always go back to the debate where Ben Carson missed his cue and stood by the curtain, not knowing whether or not he should walk on stage. While a string of less virtuous candidates smugly passed Carson by, and took advantage of his plight, only one man showed virtue: Donald Trump. And that’s just one of many examples.

I seriously doubt Donald Trump ever in his life exhibited anything close to resembling Bill Clinton’s despicable behavior toward women. From all I can see, he’s a gentleman.

The entire narrative is an invention of the Left - just as it was with Bret Kavanaugh. The only difference is that Trump was elected, answerable only to the voters, whereas Kavanaugh was appointed - making him answerable to a partisan committee in a trial-like arena.

False allegations and narratives against Trump will never see a courtroom and therefore will never be proven or disproven. They will always fester below the surface, believed by those who hate him, and dismissed by his supporters as the lies they are.

I don’t like these “back handed” hit pieces that start with a false premise of Trump being guilty of some awful behavior, but then suggest that it doesn’t matter because people don’t care about such things.

It’s not that Trump’s supporters are willing to overlook Trump’s low character - it’s that he doesn’t HAVE a low character.

Ronald Reagan was the first POTUS who was divorced - albeit, he was divorced by Jane Wyman, against his wishes.
Donald Trump had, shall we say, a very publicly colorful life in comparison. Different from Bill Clinton's, but still colorful compared to just about any other POTUS - at least publicly - before being elected POTUS.
Without the precedent of Clinton, “The Donald" Trump could not have been the Republican nominee. With it - and with Obama’s hostility to free exercise of Christianity, from which Hillary did not separate herself - all that mattered was that Mr. Trump demonstrated that he would fight, as no Bush ever would.
And, after he very specifically promised to nominate good SCOTUS justices, he won the general election.

“Without the precedent of Clinton, “The Donald” Trump could not have been the Republican nominee.”

I don’t disagree with that, and I also agree with your discription of Trump as “colorful”.

Still, I stand by my objection to the article’s false premise that Trump is not a virtuous man. Yes, Clinton lowered the bar, making Trump’s “colorful” life a non issue with the voters.

But that does NOT mean that Trump’s “colorful” behavior is anywhere close to being on par with Clinton’s long history of abhorrent behavior toward women.

Clinton did not need to lower the bar nearly so much to make Trump acceptable to the American people.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.