Good President, Bad Person?

The role of personal ethics in politics has never been black and white, but the last few decades have made it even more unclear.  Historically, personal morality was considered an important feature of elected officials, but when it came to voting, the most important factors were consistently fame and platform.  Many historians believe Abraham Lincoln won his Presidency by dressing, acting, and growing facial hair in ways considered highly attractive to women at the time, who then influenced their husbands to vote for him.

Immorality has been common in the White House throughout history.  Much of it is forgotten or ignored by history, but at the time was generally controversial.  Thomas Jefferson had an illicit relationship with one of his slaves while in office *.  Lyndon B. Johnson was more vulgar, more racist, and even more misogynistic than Donald Trump, by a long shot.  Kennedy was on amphetamines and other drugs (see "Dr. Feelgood" for more information) for part of his Presidency (and when White House doctors finally put an end to it, his judgement is said to have improved dramatically).  I think we all know what Bill Clinton did (see Monica Lewinsky if not), and then he lied about it in court, for which there is video evidence.  Nixon actually ended up resigning for activities that probably would have earned him criminal convictions, if his Vice President, Gerald Ford, had not pardoned him as soon as he took office after Nixon's resignation (which many people considered an immoral act by Ford).  And this is not all.  These are just the highlights.

Donald Trump is not clean either.  He has openly and proudly admitted to immoral acts, and he has been accused of (without proof) many more.  Donald Trump is either a pathological liar or spends a lot of time talking about things he never knew much about or has forgotten what he did know.  He's not even close to the most immoral President the U.S. has ever had, but when it comes to morality, he's definitely not a good role model.

On the other hand, Donald Trump has actually done a lot of good things for the U.S., many of which previous Presidents have failed at.  He has done a better job of keeping campaign promises than many Presidents, even when public opinion has shifted to favor those promises less.  He averted potential disaster with North Korea, and he improved our poor relationship with Russia, which was also a cause for concern that previous Presidents failed to alleviate.  While he takes far more credit for the state of our economy than he deserves (just like every other President), he has at least managed to avoid harming it much, which cannot even be said for several other recent Presidents.  His heavy handed approach to trade negotiations seems to have worked out in our favor, on average, even if it was not perfect and could have harmed our relationships with several trade partners.  It has not been perfect.  His strict enforcement of Obama's immigration policy, even when it was seriously harming people, was certainly a mistake, though it did little harm to the U.S..  The attempted investigation against Biden was a pretty poor choice, though again if Sanders keeps his lead in the primaries, none of that will have mattered.  And Trump certainly is not the first President to leverage executive power over foreign policy and aid to give himself an advantage in an election (which is actually common practice, though most Presidents attempt to boost their own reputations this way instead of tear down specific opponents).  Overall, Trump has managed to do a lot of beneficial things previous Presidents either tried to do and failed or just refused to do.

Trump is certainly immoral and even distasteful, but is this a good reason to vote for someone else, if Trump is actually doing a fairly good job as President?  This is a question many Republicans are coming up against this year.  There is no question, Trump is going to get the Republican nomination.  Sanders is currently the front runner for the Democratic nomination, and odds are looking good that he will stay there.  Many Republicans voted for Hillary in 2016, because they either did not think Trump could to the job or because they did not feel right about voting for someone as immoral as Trump.  Trump has proven that he can do the job, but his immorality is still a problem.  Hillary was fairly moderate though, compared to Sanders.  While there are some Republicans who would prefer Sanders outright, most are strongly opposed to Sanders' socialist agenda, even as moderate as it has become in recent years.

Who do you vote for, when faced with an immoral candidate and a candidate who's political platform you very strongly disagree with?  Is it wrong to vote for an immoral candidate who has proven to be a fairly good President?  Is it right to vote to replace a President who has done a fairly good job, merely because you disagree with his morality?  These are the questions many Republicans are finding themselves wondering about this year.  For them, the choice in November is not going to be about which platform they agree with most.  It is going to be about whether platform or morality is more important in a leader.  It is going to be about whether they can tolerate Medicare for All, if it is the only way to get a President with good morals.  It may not come to that.  Historically, every impeachment has flipped Congress, giving the party that did not initiate the impeachment control of Congress, and there is no reason to believe things will be any different this time.  Even if Sanders does get elected, he will almost certainly be up against a Republican controlled House and Senate, but that will not last forever.  Even if he serves only one term, there will be a chance to flip control in 2022.  If we can learn anything with history, odds if this are low, such a short time after the impeachment, but there is still a possibility.  If he serves two terms, then there will be three chances to flip Congress and get Medicare for All through.  Over 8 years, odds of it happening at least once are a lot better.  So again, is it worth the risk to have a morally acceptable President, or is avoiding Medicare for All and potentially other socialist programs worth reelecting an obviously morally corrupt President?

I do not have an answer.  I am generally conservative, but I also support common sense change that has been reasonably tested, and I am willing to support some controversial change, so long as it is treated as an experiment that can be ended if it fails, rather than as a silver bullet that is going to solve everything even though it has never been tested.  (I am a fan of the empirical method, and I believe it should be applied to governance.)  I do not like Donald Trump as a person, but I will not let that taint by view of his performance as President, which has been better than average, as far as U.S. Presidents go.  I am concerned about his morals, but I recognize that a bad President with good morals could be far more harmful to the U.S. than a good President with bad morals.  I am not strongly opposed to Sanders.  He has some good ideas, some of which have been successfully tested either in experiments or in other countries.  I do find some of his platform disturbing and problematic, but I doubt even a Democratic Congress would let the worst stuff get by it.  I am fairly content that Sanders could not do anything seriously harmful, even under a Democratic Congress.  Similarly, I am fairly content that Trump could not do anything seriously harmful under a Republican Congress, though I have less concern here, because he has not yet attempted to get Congress to do anything seriously harmful.  I will not discuss my voting plans here, but I will say that I do not think Trump or Sanders is the devil.  Sanders has become a lot more moderate in his socialist agenda, such that it is far more in line with the will of the people.  Trump has proven that he can do the job, and while he has not done it perfectly, he has done better than many past Presidents.  Trump is not even close to the most immoral President we have ever had.  He is more distasteful than downright bad.  Sanders seems to be generally a good person.  His current agenda is not the most progressive/socialist agenda a President has ever had.  Like Trump's morality, Sanders' political agenda is more distasteful than potentially seriously harmful at this point.  It might be fun to apply hyperbole to Sanders platform, but the reality is, it is not really communist, and most of it is not socialist.  Even Medicare for All is less socialist than our current medical welfare system, because it gives more people a "vote" in the medical economy.  In a sense, Medicare for All is the capitalist approach to medical welfare.

The ultimate question for Republicans this year might just be, who do you vote for, when you have a good President who is a bad person, and the alternative would make, in your opinion, a bad President who is a good person?


* To be fair to Jefferson, his wife died before he was ever elected President, so there is no evidence of adultery.  Further, by all accounts, he was completely faithful to the slave woman, treated her (and his other slaves) as family, and would likely have married her if it was legal and socially and politically acceptable for him to do so.  While his affair is often presented as an example of a President being extremely unfaithful, immoral, and even coercive, the reality is that the relationship was almost equivalent to living with your girlfriend who also happens to be your maid.