Politics was brought up at times, others it was specific examples of people we knew or had met in the past. For this discussion from the Stoa, I'm just unburdening myself of a few points that I made that I feel bear repeating, if even into my personal journal.
From time to time, I encountered confusion about what some of the words actually meant and how they were supposed to be applied. Some second-level thinking was needed to get behind the facade and get to the meat of what we were supposed to be talking about.
When a corporation, small business, or even voter is seeking to hire or elect a good person for a position, they are usually looking for similar traits in people. They want to know that they are first competent, then trustworthy, then a good member of the team. We can quibble on the order, but the gist of this is all the same. If you are hiring someone to look after and to grow a multi-million (or billion) dollar company, you want to ensure that they know how to grow money and reduce expenses. You also want to make sure that they will follow the rules and the law in the way they go about their work (ethics). Of course, you also what to know that you can trust what they are saying, since you have your own job to perform.
This a refrain that I once heard the great Rush Limbaugh utter back in the 90's when he was talking about then-President Bill Clinton. I was too distracted at the time to think about it, but he spoke a truth that at hung with me since. He said that, "Leadership descends from character". In general I think that this is an accurate statement. Though over the years since then, as I grew older and studied Stoicism I had to reject that statement only because I felt it used the wrong word. Leadership descends from Virtue.
For years I struggled with how someone like a Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or Barak Obama can so willingly inflict policies on the country that force us into a declining cultural condition. Then, at some point, it came to me that a person's character can be either good or bad, depending on the subjective point of view. To all the frothing lunatics that willing follow a Nancy Pelosi or a Barak Obama, the character of these individuals in impeccable. From my point of view they are wasting good, breathable air. Those that agree with Pelosi simply have different values and beliefs then I. Good and bad are rather subjective...until you look at method, mode, and motive. Things get clearer there and begin to cross deeply into my thoughts on Virtue.
A good, quick definition of virtue looks like this: "Virtue (Latin virtus; Greek ἀρετή "arete") is moral excellence. A virtue is a trait or quality deemed to be morally excellent and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being." The Greeks were brilliant and their language reflected their desire to get things not just right, but exactly right. Morality by its definition is "good". Amorality is "bad". We are seeking someone who will make money for us, not embezzle it. If a person's character allows them to use taxpayer money to hire fifty body guards and drive a fleet of Cadillac Escalades around is not practicing a moral virtue, Mr. Former Detroit Mayor. A Speaker that purchases her a private jet to fly back and forth from San Francisco every week, even though there have been Speakers in the past from the west coast who got by on less, is not practicing fiduciary restraint. This person, though wealthy enough on their own to operate this craft every week still permits the taxpayer to pay for this jet and its operation. Not a virtuous act. Virtue is not subjective to the observer. It is an absolute truth. Killing someone for fun is amoral. Killing someone in self-defense is not. War is amoral by nature, but serving humanity by keeping liberty alive is a moral act.
Seeking someone of good character is simply not good enough. They must be able to demonstrate Virtue. Leadership descends from Virtue. Honesty is a Virtue. Purchasing real estate in a desert and then having it rezoned under your board for a profitable re-sale is not virtuous, Mr. Reid. Owning a multi-million dollar compound while making a very low six-figure income and not explaining how you happened to come by the compound is not virtuous, Mr. Biden. Likewise, hiring a person to run a business who simply drives the share price up for a year-end bonus is not the right CEO either.
Since I brought up the CEO, I'll talk about them in a little more detail. In this new(er) climate of paying an executive a multiple of their lowest payed employee (does not work well in Japan, so lets bring it here) would drive out the good CEOs and send them to over-seas competition. All that Socialist crap plays well in the media but not outside the land of "make believe". For years CEOs have had compensation tied to stock performance as a bonus on top of their base salary, which may actually be a 20:1 multiple of their entry level folks. A CEO that wants to earn $20,000,000 per year on a $250,000 salary will be focused on getting their stocks to perform. A virtuous CEO will make the company stronger and more competitive; more effective. One without virtue will manipulate the books, play with the market, drop hints in speeches (insider trading) and suck up to the politicians in power: yes, I'm talking to you Mr. Immelt. Simply "playing by the rules" is not good enough. You have to do the right thing, regardless of whether anyone is watching or even if your pay will suffer. You are either working for the good of a company, its shareholders, its employees, and its customers, or you are simply trying to get rich. Getting rich is a noble pursuit, as long as it is done virtuously: no, I AM NOT talking to you Mr. Soros. If you are manipulating stock for your own enrichment, you are not working at my company.
From the viewpoints of a Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, and a President Obama, they feel that they are doing the right thing, perhaps, by trying to turn the United States into a Socialist Utopia. My wife feels they are in it only for money and power. She is usually right about these things...but I digress from my esoteric points. They can not get the electorate to go along with them normally, so they call them "stupid, religious, and overly patriotic". This is done to demean their opposition so that they can feel better about bending, braking, or otherwise ignoring the Constitution, Federal case law, and cultural customs in order to make their vision of the United States the only vision of the United States. This is NOT virtuous at all. They may tip the newspaper boy (what are these "newspapers" of which you speak) for Christmas (oops, I mean MLK day), be good fathers and mothers at home, but they are amoral and demonstrating vice when they are entrusted with the vital responsibilities of government.
I'm sure your feet and buttock are hurting at the base of the Stoa from such an esoteric discussion, but I do feel better. Over the years it bugged me how we could keep electing people who are so OBVIOUSLY deficient in both character and virtues to office, election after election. People simply do not recognize the semantic differences between character and virtue. They think that just because Obama is black (well, half black) that he is owed the position. That his election will somehow expunge our national guilt over slavery, or that he will be a moderate are simply not using their critical thinking skills. Look back at my posting on the educational system and this will be clearer to all of you about why people can not think empirically any longer.
Leadership does descend from Character, however, the character must be measured against virtue.
The Stoa is free for the next teacher. Use it well
No comments:
Post a Comment