Why character matters

The results of the experiment are in.

Why character matters

Let me take you back to a very old debate, because it’s curiously coming full-circle – thanks to the man very much at the center of it when it first started.

When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, it was early on in the race that allegations came out about his marital infidelity. (And in response to where I know some of you will go at this point, read this.) Not surprisingly, a lot of Republicans seized on these allegations to make the case that a man who can’t be trusted in his personal life would likely be untrustworthy in public office.

This brought an interesting response from many Democrats – one that you might say in retrospect represented a seminal change in our culture and in the way we view our political leaders. They argued that character really doesn’t matter, at least not if it’s defined by personal morality. They claimed that “everyone lies about sex” and that a person who is dishonest in his personal life could still be an effective president if he possesses the necessary skills (and, of course, the ideological positions they prefer).

This was the first time such an argument had seriously been offered on behalf of a presidential candidate. Four years earlier, Gary Hart had been forced to end his campaign because of an affair. That same year, Joe Biden had been forced to withdraw from the race because it came out that he had plagiarized a speech. (I wonder what ever happened to him.)

Once people believed you were personally dishonest, you were pretty well done as a presidential candidate. And that rule held until Bill Clinton came along. He was unlike previous candidates in that he refused to back down just because he’d been caught with his pants down, so to speak. He argued that what really mattered was that he would “focus like a laser on the economy” and that he “felt your pain”.

The Clintons’ personal dishonesty has led to their abuse of government positions to enrich themselves

And the electorate in 1992, faced with an unusual three-way race involving Ross Perot, decided to give the dishonest man a chance to govern.

So was it true? Did character really not matter? Was personal morality really irrelevant to a skilled politician’s ability to govern the nation?

Fast-forward to the present day. Bill and Hillary Clinton have personally enriched themselves to the point where their reported net worth exceeds $50 million, notwithstanding Hillary’s claim that they were “flat broke” when they left the White House. I don’t mind at all that they’re rich. But I do mind how they’ve done it, which has been to use their positions of power and influence in government to trade favors for cash.

We learned a lot this past week. We learned that the Clinton Foundation deceived the IRS about three years’ worth of donations it received from the IRS. We learned that Hillary approved a major transaction as Secretary of State that allowed the Russians to gain control over one-fifth of all U.S. uranium – all while interested parties in Russia were bankrolling the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons personally. We learned two weeks ago that as Secretary of State, Hillary routinely changed her position on key trade issues to benefit those who donated to the Clinton Foundation. And of course, we all know that Hillary broke her own department’s rules by using a personal e-mail server for all government business, then wiped it clean to prevent congressional investigators from finding out what was on it.

The Clintons’ personal dishonesty has led to their abuse of government positions to enrich themselves. And why should this surprise anyone? This is what dishonest people do.

There is no separating personal morality from professional integrity. People are either honest or they’re not. And when they’re not, you can fully expect the way they govern to reflect their dishonesty.

If the American people make the mistake of electing Hillary Clinton president, they will get another administration that lies to them and abuses power for the benefit of those who hold it. Because that’s what dishonest people do. The results are in on the “character doesn’t matter” experiment, which we undertook by putting the Clintons in the White House. In the two-plus decades they’ve been on the scene, their pursuit of political power and personal wealth at the expense of truth, ethics and the rule of law has been one of the constants in American political life.

America, do you really want more of this? Because if you do, I think you still haven’t learned the lesson that character does matter. Ironically, it was Bill Clinton who proved it, and that might be the reason Hillary never gets to take the oath of office.

Although to be honest, any reason for that would be a good enough reason for me.

By Herman Cain