On Principles

Based on a 2018 Facebook Note.

If I were to be elected president – in some infinitely improbable sequence of events – I would enter office with two basic understandings. First, I would do my best to act in the best interests of everyone, even those I disagree with or who are not like me. Second, I would do my best to represent everyone in the country, not just proclaim my opinion. I believe the personal desires of a president, queen, or king must become subordinate to the needs of the nation, except in so far as the way their private opinions happen to reflect clear principles to help guide the country. It’s a good thing when a scout’s private desire is to be “Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent,” because these ideals are also intended to guide the whole of the organization, to help all scouts be of service to all others. If, however, a scout believed that these ideals only applied to the way he treated other scouts, or only to the way he treated those in society that happened to share his personal beliefs or religious background, he would be less likely to act in the best interests of either scouting or society.

When Solomon prayed for wisdom, he did not want it for himself, but to help him rule a great people. “Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?” This, I believe, is the kind of request that God honors. “Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches or the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, behold, I now do according to your word.” Being a world leader is truly an overwhelming responsibility, not because it is personal, but because the person who has it is responsible for millions, perhaps billions, of lives.

So, a president, queen, or king is not allowed the luxury of thinking, speaking, or acting like “the average Joe” – Archie Bunker comes to mind – not that there’s anything wrong with “the average Joe” having an opinion or sharing it with friends. If I share my opinion with my wife or my friends, it is just that – my opinion – nobody else’s. I am not in a position where my opinion might be construed as the opinion of my country or of my government. Like it or not, when a person is elected to represent millions of others, what he or she shares with the world carries much more weight.

In times past, government officials wore a “chain of office.” Usually, the higher the office, the heavier the chain, to remind the wearer of the weight of his responsibility. Whenever one began thinking the more bling, the more prestige, that sort of pride generally led to a fall. When personal expressions are taken to be national views, the result can be international discord or war. Again, if a conspiracy-theory-loving friend wants to spew an ignorant, ill-conceived, or irrational opinion…OK…it’s worth a grain of salt…literally 1/7.8-billionth of the world’s opinion. However, if a world leader does the same, that opinion is automatically amplified by the population of his or her country as well as its economic and military power. Any U.S. President would do well to keep this fact in mind.

If a president embodies just about everything my parents told me not to be, I’d say he or she was unfit for office. I was told countless times not to be self-centered, not to be a “know-it-all,” not to be a “smart-aleck,” not to cheat others, not to be a “bully,” and not to be a “braggart.” My parents instructed me that the strong ought to defend the weak – that having money, power, or fame comes with a proportional share of responsibility – and that I should learn to take responsibility for what I say and do. Whenever a president shares angry Tweets, or denigrates others, or in general acts like a spoiled rich kid, I think back to the time my parents would have been the first to tell me to stop such inconsiderate behavior, at the risk of being “disowned.” If I learned nothing else, I learned that it was not desirable to be a “self-centered-know-it-all-smart-aleck-cheating-bullying-braggart.” So, even if you put aside the more salacious allegations against a man like Donald Trump, there is not a lot for me to emulate, much less support or admire.

When one has his finger on the nuclear button, it’s probably a good idea to be well-informed, to have a global perspective, to have a sense of responsibility for more than one’s “base.” I went to college to get a larger perspective, to learn how others lived, to learn from science, history, and the humanities, to make sure I was not just seeing the world based on my limited experience as a small-town boy who grew up in central Pennsylvania. There’s nothing wrong with having roots, knowing where you came from, sympathizing with others who are like you, and so on, but it seems to me we should at least be open to the fact that not everyone is like us. Nevertheless, even those who are not like us share many of our needs and desires. We all want a decent job, a safe place to live, to be able to take care of our children, and to live with dignity and respect.

When some guy in a bar or a character in a movie calls another country a “shithole,” that’s one thing. But, when the President of the United States echoes that sentiment, we need to question it. Another thing my parents, particularly my dad, taught me was to have a set of principles. Yet, “America First” is not a principle. It’s a belief at best, a slogan at worst. Some people believe in “me first” living. “Look out for number one,” they say. This too is not a principle. It might be an honest expression of someone’s choice to disregard the needs of others or to be callous or indifferent when it suits them. If anything, the “principle” involved is that that their needs outweigh the needs of others. But, is this the way we want to live? Are the needs of men more important than the needs of women, or vice-versa? Are the needs of Christians more important than the needs of other believers? Are the needs of whites more important than blacks? Are the needs of US citizens more important than the needs of citizens in other countries? If your answer to these kinds of questions is, “of course not,” we are on the same page.

So, what are some principles? I mentioned one above: The strong should defend those incapable of defending themselves. This is why we have a military, and why we honor our soldiers and law enforcement officers. This is why we have welfare services for children and the elderly. Human rights are important. This is why we work against genocide, political imprisonment, and human trafficking, and for programs that enhance justice. Human health is important. Education is important. Sustainability is important. Food, shelter, and clothing are important. Freedom, justice, and equality are important. In other words, what do we, as inhabitants of the earth, believe in so strongly that we are willing to work together to achieve? If all we believe in is “my country” or “my religion” or “my tribe,” we are all doomed.

It seems to me Tweet tantrums are far from articulating a coherent foreign or domestic policy. What are our principles? What should our president believe in, other than himself? C.S. Lewis once pointed out that the man who “believes in himself” alone is like a patient in an insane asylum who firmly believes he is Napoleon. Yet, if the patient can be convinced that somehow others are to be considered, that he can love others as he loves himself, there is hope. So, what are, or should be, our principles? What can help guide us? It’s not enough to threaten another nation with cutting off aid, although a president is not wrong to imply that perhaps we should not support countries that do not share our values. We must be clear about what we are saying and doing. What principles are we using to evaluate the actions of other nations? What principles guide the president’s choice to sign or veto legislation? Does he sign because he wants to “make a statement,” or does the law truly advance certain principles? Perhaps we should ask, “how will this benefit everyone in the long run?” or “what if this starts harming people?”

Further, how have we communicated our principles? What do others think our principles are? When I read news stories from other countries, it becomes obvious that our principles are unclear, or just an incoherent mess. We need to do better at declaring what we stand for, other than somehow making our country great again. We also need to do a better job of pursuing our principles consistently. How can we be both an honest broker of peace and the world’s largest arms dealer? By what principle can we invade some countries and let others fall apart? By what principle can we ignore refugees and subsidize the wealthiest among us? A “self-centered-know-it-all-smart-aleck-cheating-bullying-braggart” could not answer these kinds of questions. A person of circumspection, reflection, and wisdom might have a chance.