Measuring Presidential Character — and Voters’, Too

by Christopher G. Wren

September 19, 2004

As the 2004 Presidential campaign has unfolded, both George Bush and John Kerry have made “character” a central theme of their campaigns – Kerry by reference to his medal-winning service in Vietnam and his willingness to speak out against the war after returning from that war zone, Bush by touting himself as a “wartime President” (meanwhile having recently declared that the war he claims to lead is unwinnable). At the same time, each candidate has faced intense criticism of his character — Kerry by the discredited, ill-named, and Bush-connected Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and Bush because of long-unanswered questions about hisservice with the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, including the reason he really stopped flying for the Guard, whether he actually fulfilled his service obligation, and whether his service warranted an honorable discharge.

Unlike many other people, I do not regard the debate over character as a distraction from the “real” issues in the campaign. I regard character as a critical factor – even the critical factor, the most real of issues– in deciding for whom to vote for President. Campaign promises and policy proposals, like elaborate battle plans in combat, rarely survive contact with reality. So for me, the grandiose details of promises and proposals do not matter as much as they do for many of my friends; those details will almost inevitably disappear in the fog of actually governing.

Instead, for me, a candidate’s promises and proposals matter more as gauges, as indicators of the candidate’s intentions when in office and of whether I would likely feel comfortable with the direction in which the candidate proposes taking the country. The more important issue for me concerns the sincerity with which the candidate believes in his or her promises and proposals. A good policy dishonestly touted by a slithery candidate as a pander to rope in a chunk of the voters needed to win an election will, at best,emerge stillborn after the election.

Few people would likely dispute the importance of good character in an elected official, especially a President. But character remains a slippery thing, an attribute that eludes easy definition, a trait that every candidate (even the sleaziest) declares he or she possesses, yet a trait that each candidate will inevitably define in a self-serving way.

So, when dealing with the question of character, the dilemma conscientious voters face comes down to this: character counts, but what counts as character? Can we find an untainted criterion for assessing character, or at least its components?

Even in these days of extreme partisanship, I think nearly everyone would agree on one thing regardless of party, candidate preference, or political ideology: a leader, especially a President, should possess good character, especially during a period of war. In addition, I will venture that anyone concerned about character would regard integrity and moral courage as core components of good character.

George Bush and Dick Cheney certainly regard moral courage as an important measure of character, Presidential and otherwise.A search of the White House Website for the phrase “moral courage” retrieves a collection of nearly fifty speeches and documents in which the phrase appears. A large percentage of the collection consists of variations on a stump speech Cheney delivers to gatherings of Republicans, such as areception for the Republican Party of Oregon in January 2004. In each of the speeches, Cheney pays tribute to Ronald Reagan, declaring that “[a]s a congressman during the decisive years of the Cold War, I saw the conviction and the moral courage of Ronald Reagan.”In a similar vein, Bush on June 12, 2004, devoted his weekly radio addressto honoring Reagan and, like Cheney, praised Reagan’s moral courage, saying that Reagan “inspired millions with his conviction and moral courage.”Approving references to moral courage appear in other contexts, including Presidential proclamations designating a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving in 2001and declaring Captive Nations Week in July 2004. Bush twice praised Pope John Paul II for his moral courage, first in March 2001 at the dedication of the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center at CatholicUniversity in Washington, DC., and again in June 2004 at the ceremony for this year’s recipients (including Pope John Paul II) of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. White House press secretary Scott McClellan echoed those sentiments about the Pope a few weeks before Bush visited the Vatican in June 2004.

Moreover, in remarks to Air Force cadets in 2003 at the 10th Annual National Character and Leadership Symposium at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Bush’s ownSecretary of the Air Force, James G. Roche, declared, “Leadership requires great moral courage. If you allow your character to be compromised now, you will never be able to stand strong when you face the wrongdoings of others in the future. The flaws in your character now will only be amplified under the great pressure of supervision, command, and combat.”

So, it seems fair to believe that Bush would not harbor any objection to measuring himself by the standard of “moral courage.”

And I imagine John Kerry would not object to “moral courage” as a suitable measure of character, either. As reported in The New York Timeson August 20, 2004, George Elliott, commander of the Navy’s Coastal Division Eleven when Kerry served in that unit in Vietnam, approved an officer fitness report in 1969that ranked Kerry “as ‘not exceeded’ in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and ‘one of the top few’ – the second-highest distinction – in the remaining five.” To guide the evaluator, the fitness report included a one-line definition of “moral courage”: “To do what he ought to do regardless of consequences to himself.” (Kerry has posted copies of his official naval records and after-action combat reports on his campaign’s Website.)

An important question arises, however: what does “moral courage” mean? The one-line précis in the Navy’s fitness-report form, centered on the phrase “to do what he ought to do” and thus implying that moral courage includes some prescriptive component for the leader’s conduct, does not, ultimately, afford much guidance by itself. And none of the speeches or documents retrieved by searching the White House Website provides adefinition, description, or explanation of the phrase.

Thus, an important – even indispensable –trait of Presidential characterremains essentially undefined (at least by the candidates) and, therefore, of indeterminate value as a yardstick for measuring Presidential character.And even if the candidates offered a definition, would that matter? Bush would almost certainly look askance at a definition proposed by Kerry, and similarly, Kerry would likely not trust a definition propounded by Bush.

For a definition of “moral courage” that gives content to this crucial leadership trait and yet does not carry a partisan taint, I suggest turning to arespected, independent institution that highly values moral courage because the institution believes human lives literally depend on leaders possessing this character trait. Over decades, even centuries, this institution has developed and refined the concept, and has developed the concept without any partisan or political ax to grind in doing so.

I refer to the armed forces of the United States.

In doctrinal publications as well as less-formal contexts, the military has created a concept of moral courage that we, as voters, can use to evaluate the character of candidates seeking to occupy the highest position the military’s chain of command: President of the United States. If the military insists that its leaders and troops possess moral courage, we as voters should insist that the leader of those leaders and troops also possess that character trait. As commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States, the President should exhibit qualities of character, including moral courage, no less exacting than the military sets for itself. The concept of leading by example applies as much to the President of the United States as it does to any leader of a military unit – or, for that matter, to the leader of any government agency, educational institution, nonprofit group, corporation, or religious organization.

The military’s concept of moral courage serves as a useful gauge of Presidential character because the concept has evolved from experience not tied to partisanship. Bombs and bullets do not distinguish between Democratic and Republican warriors. The military did not adopt and refine the idea of moral courage to benefit a particular party or political ideology, but to benefit itself by providing a touchstone standard for selecting leaders. Bad things – unnecessarily fatal things – happen when leaders lack or abandon moral courage. Witness, for example,My Lai and Abu Ghraib.

In the military, moral courage does not reduce to a dictionary-like definition. Rather, the definition of moral courage comes by way of explanations, descriptions, and examples designed to capture the matrix of traits that comprise moral courage. Each branch of service – Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines – has its own way of expressing the idea, but those expressions, whatever the variations among them, remain consistent in the view that moral courage forms a cornerstone of leadership and that any leader worth following must possess moral courage.

The military’s concern about moral courage does not reflect new-found wisdom. In fact, the recognition of the importance of moral courage has deep roots in military culture. As one Marine Corps leadership publication, Marine Corps Values: A User’s Guide for Discussion Leaders, notes, “Napoleon said that in war, the importance of the moral, relative to the physical, is three to one.” (The Marine Corps guide also identifies moral courage as one of the criteria for promotion.)

So, what does the United States military say about moral courage?

The emphasis on moral courage begins at the top of the military’s uniformed hierarchy, inthe Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). Joint Publication 1 (JP 1), titled Joint Warfare of the Armed Forces of the United States, serves as the premier war-fighting doctrinal publication of the JCS, which issued the current revision on November 14, 2000, just a week after the polls closed on the Presidential election. (The JCS issued the previous revision of JP1in early 1995.) The opening paragraphs of the JCS Chair’s transmittal letter for the current revision declare:

Joint Publication (JP) 1, Joint Warfare of the Armed Forces of the United States, serves as the capstone publication for all US joint doctrine. This revision represents the evolution in our warfighting guidance since the last edition [1995] – including sections on consideration for the use of force, interagency operations, and multinational operations. This publication also includes an expanded scope that bridges the gap among the national, strategic, and operational levels.

JP 1 now ties joint doctrine to the national security strategy and national military strategy and describes the military’s role in the development of national policy and strategy. It provides the linkage between joint doctrine and the contribution of other government agencies and multinational endeavors. JP 1 sets forth the concepts, relationships, and processes necessary for unified action of joint, interagency, and multinational operations.. . .

The preface both recaps and elaborates on the scope of the publication and its application:

Joint Publication 1 is the capstone joint doctrine publication. It guides the Armed Forces of the United States in joint, multinational, and interagency activities at all levels across the range of military operations.

. . . The Armed Forces embody the highest values and standards of American society and the profession of arms. They fulfill their roles, missions, and functions within the American system of civil-military relations. They serve under the civilian control of the President who is the Commander in Chief.

. . . .

This publication is written to assistmembers of the Armed Forces of the UnitedStates to operate successfully together. Thejoint team is comprised of the members ofeach Service, active and reserve, as well asassociated civilians in the supportinggovernmental and private sector workforces.The guidance in this publication is broad andauthoritative. It requires a leader’s judgmentin application. This doctrine will be followedexcept when, in the judgment of thecommander, exceptional circumstancesdictate otherwise.

. . . [T]oassure that the Armed Forces achieve theirfullest potential, all American military leadersmust integrate the content of this publicationinto their efforts to develop leaders and trainforces for joint, multinational, and interagencyoperations.

. . . .

. . . The chapters that follow describe theprinciples for forming, training,andemploying joint teams in unifiedaction at alllevels across the range of military operations.These broad principles that guide operationsare neitherpolicy nor strategy – they aredoctrine. The principles apply to actionundertaken by the Armed Forces of the UnitedStates to execute applicable nationalpolicies,as well as the contemporary national securityand military strategies.

The executive summary of JP 1 sets the framework for understanding the significance of moral courage in the military (all emphases as in JP 1):

The Armed Forces of the United States hold in trust for the American people the military power of the nation and are the ultimate guarantors of its territorial integrity and independence. Challenges and threats may arise from adversaries who are opposed to US values and interests. The fundamental purpose of the Armed Forces is to win the Nation’s wars. The employment of American military power adheres toconstitutional and other legal imperatives, the highest societal values,and the concepts of proportionality, decisiveness, and accountability to the American people. . . .

. . . .

War is a human undertaking that does not respond to deterministic rules. Of primary importance, therefore, are the values that US military experience has proven to be the bedrock of combat success. The foremost value is integrity, the cornerstone for building trust. Military men and women must know that they can count on each other to say what they mean and do what they say, relying with confidence on others to carry out assigned tasks. Competence is at the core of the profession of arms and includes both the technical competence to perform the relevant task to standard as well as the ability to integrate that skill with others according to joint doctrine.Physical and moral courage have defined warriors throughout history. Even in warfare characterized by advanced technology, individual fighting spirit and courage remain the inspiration for teamwork. Moral courage involves competent risk taking and tenacity and includes the willingness to stand up for what one believes to be right, accepting full responsibility for the outcome. Finally, teamwork results from cooperative efforts based on demonstrated competence and a willing attitude to achieve common goals.

Later, the JCS elaborates on the overview set out in the executive summary, first noting that “American military service is based on values that US military experience has proven to be the bedrock of combat success (Figure III-1). These values adhere to the most idealistic societal norms, are common to all the Services, and represent the essence of American military professionalism. The discussion that follows focuses on those values that have a special impact on joint matters.”JP1 then fleshes out the meaning of those bedrock values– integrity, competence, physical courage, moral courage, and teamwork:

The foremost value is integrity. It is the cornerstone for building trust. American Service men and women must be able to rely on each other, regardless of the challenge at hand; they must individually and collectively say what they mean and do what they say. Integrity inspires confidence in others to carry out assigned tasks and is a fundamental requirement for building effective teams.

Competence is at the core of the profession of arms and of the relationshipof the profession with theAmericanpeople. Competent performanceincludes both the technical competenceto perform the relevanttask to standardas well as the ability to integrate that skillwith others according to joint doctrine.The American people and multinationalpartners expect US military competencein every aspect of warfare.Service menand women deserve no less from thosewho lead them into battle. . . .

Throughout the history of mankind,physical courage has defined warriors.The United States of America is blessedwith its Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen,Marines, and Coast Guardsmen, whosecourage knows no boundaries. Even inwarfare characterized by advancedtechnology, individual fighting spirit andcourageremain the inspiration forteamwork.

Moral courage is also essential inmilitary operations. This includes thewillingness to stand up for whatonebelieves to be right even if that stand isunpopular or contrary to conventionalwisdom. Other aspects ofmoral courageinvolve risk taking and tenacity:making bold decisions in the face ofuncertainty, accepting full responsibilityfor the outcome, and holding to thechosen course despite challenges ordifficulties. Competence is an essentialfoundation for moral courage.Competence separates theprofessionalfrom the foolhardy. Military power mustbe wielded in an unimpeachable moralfashion, withrespect for human rightsand adherence to the GenevaConventions. This morality should notbe a matter of legality, but of conscience.Moral behavior is essential for gainingand maintaining the positive worldwidereputation of American fighting men andwomen as well as the confidence andsupport of the Americanpeople, a basicsource of American military strength.