The Morality, Character, and Leadership of Government Officials

In recent years a public official’s private morality has been used to question his “character” and his ability to lead. This tendency has run rampant during the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton. The purpose of this article is to examine the issue of private morality and the popular and historical attitudes toward acts which are considered immoral. Perhaps it will also help to understand the personal problem(s) which may cause the official’s “fall from grace.”

Edward VIII of England was forced to abdicate when he wished to marry a divorced woman.

Page 201

The Church of England considered divorce immoral, which is quite interesting since that Church was specifically created by Henry VIII to grant him the divorce which had been refused by the Roman Church. Times, however, do change. The present heir to the British throne is divorced and recently his mistress was granted an interview with the Queen.

In Malaysia a leader of the opposition was convicted of sexual misconduct under Islamic Law. That did not reduce his popularity with the electorate who considered the charges irrelevant.

At the funeral of former French President Mitterrand both his wife and acknowledged mistress were in attendance. That should be no surprise since the “office” of Royal Mistress was created by “His Most Christian Majesty” Louis XIII. Perhaps, if such a tradition were available in Latin America, history might have been changed and no one would cry for Argentina.

It would seem that attitudes toward morality shift. Perhaps. It is my view that the question of private morality comes into significant play only when there is a “feeling” that the official either has failed to lead or when the leader threatens to lead in what is considered an erroneous or dangerous direction. A thorough study of Edward VIII’s political ideology might reveal that that ideology had more to do with his forced abdication than his liaison with an American divorcee.

An official, even if “born to the purple,” must surrender some humanity to fully serve the needs of his public. A problem arises: most individuals cannot fully surrender their humanity and are frequently forced to use clandestine means to maintain a feeling of self. The good old days when reality and legend intertwined — when the reality of a sovereign dressed as a peasant or barmaid allowed that individual considerable freedom to enjoy his or her humanity — no longer exist. Then, the populace accepted the disguise and, in their minds, separated the person from the office of a good sovereign. Elizabeth Petrovna could be more human than Russian Empress Elizabeth.

Some called upon to serve are not willing to give up some of their humanity. On October 10, 1802, Daniel Tilton of Philadelphia sent Secretary of State James Madison a letter rejecting the offered post of judge in the Mississippi Territory because those duties were incompatible with his duties as husband and parent. John Jay resigned the unique post of Chief Justice of the United States to become Minister to Great Britain because, in part, his backside could no longer endure the pain of riding circuit. Pierpont Edwards refused to run for the Congress because he could not afford the loss of income form his legal practice.

With few exceptions, individuals who reach for the top of the political ladder must sacrifice many human concerns. Money, for example. Jefferson and Kennedy spent more money as public servants than they earned. It bankrupted Jefferson. With Kennedy it made no difference — he contributed his salary to charity. All the lavish parties he and Jackie gave in the White House were paid out of his pocket. Hamilton died a pauper — his friends bought his home at a lavish price and then resold it to the widow at a pittance so she could have his pension. Truman had no money and his Presidency was one of the dullest social seasons in Washington’s history. Carter had little money and had to charge admission to the celebration of the Camp David Accord.

Friendship is also a problem for leaders. Napoleon wrote: “Conquest has made me what I am and it alone … sustains me. I love nobody. I know perfectly well that I have no real friends. A man must be firm, with stout heart, or else leave war and government alone.” John Adams and Jefferson were friends until politics separated them. Hamilton and Burr had been friends — their daughters played together. Political leaders cannot afford lifelong friends — it could create political problems as Jackson, Grant, Harding, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Carter learned.

Being at the top is isolating. Dedicated executives work very hard at their jobs. One may dislike Philip II or Nicholas I, but they worked at their jobs. In the United States the “buck stops” with the President.

One cannot allow physical pain to bar the way to political activity. If John Kennedy’s older brother, Joseph, Jr., had not been killed, I am not sure what John would have done. He had only one dream — to be the first Catholic President of the United States. But that post was reserved for Joe, Jr. Sickly, depressed, and frequently hospitalized — sometimes under an assumed name — John wandered through school and an early job. Then he sneaked into the Navy and, despite constant pain, emerged a real hero. With the death of Joe, Jr., Joe, Sr. recognized “Jack” as Number One and Jack sprang to life. The constant pain from his back, his poor eyesight and hearing, his numerous allergies and non-functional adrenal glands mat-

Page 202

tered little. He would shake hands until has hand was bloody. He would stand without crutches, leaning on something until he almost fainted from pain. In the end it was the braces and bandages that contributed to his death — he could not slump forward when the first shot struck.

Both Roosevelts had physical problems. Teddy was sickly, could not walk as a child, and had extremely poor eyesight. His parents built a pool and gym in their New York town house. Franklin was in perfect health until polio struck. To achieve political office both men pretended to be healthy at great personal costs. Teddy became a great hunter and polo player. Six-foot-four Franklin was seen standing (although held up by his sons, the braces and wheelchair well hidden). The pain of their bodies would not still their political ambitions.

Cut off from normal relationships and normal feelings, leaders have to find some type of contact or diversion. Surrounded by people, leaders cannot reveal themselves. They are isolated in a crowd.

Jefferson would constantly tear down and rebuild Monticello, write and rewrite. Jackson and Grant drank. Teddy Roosevelt would hunt, play polo, and write. Wilson sermonized and wrote. Harding played bridge. Hoover went fishing but learned to play bridge to please Harding and Coolidge. Franklin Roosevelt would collect stamps and talk. Churchill, who stuttered, would paint and write. Truman walked at a fast pace and played poker. Eisenhower had golf. Kennedy had his compound on Cape Cod, his sailboat, football, and “rat pack.”

But for some leaders such activities were not sufficient substitutes for human feelings.

The American courts have finally realized that rape has little to do with sex. It is a power play. Perhaps the courts will soon realize that womanizing — or manizing, given the realty of modern society — also has little to do with sex. While it is not quite the same type of power play, it does involve power. It could be either an abuse of power or the attraction of power, where both partners receive some sort of gratification. In either event it is a symptom of loneliness or depression. For some it is an attempt to have some sort of human contact without strings. Instead of Prozac, one has a brief encounter but not a meaningful affair. The issue has less to do with marital fidelity and morality than to reaching out for human contact — an attempt to feel whole for a minute, to have some human relationship. It is a private “non-rational” moment. Remember, leaders and their spouses usually have separate bedrooms and are frequently apart for long periods.

Jefferson had Sally Hemings. Burr and Hamilton had anyone who was willing — John Adams wrote that there were not enough whores to drain Hamilton’s semen. Harding had his encounter in the Senate; Cleveland in the New York Governor’s Mansion; Franklin Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Clinton in the White House. Napoleon, Francis I, Henri II, Eisenhower, and Bush had their encounters in the military — with women; Caesar, Richard the Lion-Hearted, Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great, and Philippe, Duke of Orleans (brother of Louis XIV) also had theirs in the military — but with men and boys. Empress Elizabeth and Catherine the Great had an organization to provide studs. Isabella II of Spain did it with anyone willing — even in the dentist’s chair at the American Embassy; and Charles II did it with anyone but his wife.

Who cares? That is an interesting question.

In the Presidential election of 1884, the Democratic Party nominated Cleveland while the Republican Party nominated James G. Blaine. Cleveland had rather dubious private morals. Blaine had dubious public morals. Having lived through the Presidency of Chester Arthur, who had spent a few nights in jail because of some hanky panky and the New York Customhouse scandal, the American public elected Cleveland. If there is going to be hanky panky, better that it be in bed than with government bonds.

John Locke, defending his position about the right to remove officials, explained in the second of his Two Treatises on Government that human foibles are not an excuse for removal — only a continuous threat to the governance of the state is a legitimate reason for removal. “Only when rulers,” he wrote, “grow exorbitant in the use of their powers, and employ it for the destruction of people’s right, is removal legitimate.” In Talmudic tradition there is the concept that “Great Men have Great Appetites” which they should try to control. How else could the Talmudists defend David and Solomon. Islamic Law, which recognizes the reality of harem, would consider the private immorality of public officials as something between the individual and Allah.

Page 203

By and large, the public and the historians have separated the private and public lives of leaders. I remember how Fawn Brodie and James Flexner were attacked by scholars for wasting so much space on the sexual activities of Jefferson and Hamilton. Some scholars would seek them out at professional conferences just to denounce them. Both authors were correct, but that has not changed the attitude of the public.

Who bothers with the homosexuality of Frederick the Great or the bisexuality of Richard, Alexander, and Caesar? “Caesar conquered Pergamon, but the king conquered Caesar,” charged the Roman wags. Who cares how many lovers Catherine had or that she gave her studs 75 million rubles and 200,000 serfs — even made one King of Poland — or that James I had male lovers on both sides of the Tweed River? Some Boston gossips wondered why James Madison had no children or why James Buchanan never married. Those “facts” do not even deserve a footnote in historical studies.

But, Edward II, who was bi-sexual, confused the bedroom and the stateroom. Both he and his lover, Piers Gaveston, also a bisexual, were murdered because of favors and power Edward granted Gaveston. Isabella II of Spain, forced to marry her homosexual cousin, had numerous affairs but could not govern. She was disposed in the hope of stabilizing the nation. Henry III of France was a transvestite but was murdered because he did not kill enough Calvinists. Enrique IV of Castile could not keep law and order or stop runaway inflation, and was deposed in favor of his half-sister, Isabella, while his daughter was a bastard. He became known as Enrique the Impotent, which he was not. Frederick the Great preferred a Casanova to a woman. Louis XIII did sire children, but under protest. David Lloyd George was called “Old Goat” because of his womanizing activities. So what? Only when the rulers failed to provide domestic tranquility did the morality card some into play.

Did American Presidents knowingly obstruct justice and violate their oaths to defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States? Probably constantly. Washington showed the way to them. At the suggestion of his Secretary of State, Jefferson, he refused to give Congress documents involving the defeat of General Arthur Saint Clair’s 1100-man force by 800 native Americans. Adams violated the neutrality act by supporting the undeclared war with France. Jefferson refused to allow federal officials to testify in the trials of Smith and Ogden. He knowingly submitted forged documents, bribed witnesses, and withheld evidence during the trials of Aaron Burr. Jefferson and Jackson specifically ordered that Supreme Court decisions not be obeyed. Madison illegally occupied Spanish territory and sanctioned Jackson’s invasion of Florida. Teddy Roosevelt sanctioned — if not instigated — the Panamanian revolution against Colombia. Franklin Roosevelt knowingly signed unconstitutional acts believing that by the time the Supreme Court got around to hearing the case, the legislation would have accomplished its purpose. But frankly, who remembers the Congressional investigation of the defeat of General Saint Clair? All we remember is Parson Weems’ delightful, fabricated tale of little George Washington’s confessions to his father that he chopped down the cherry tree: “I cannot tell a lie.”

What about telling the truth? Should we expect leaders to always tell the truth? Jefferson lied about covert operations against Spain and Tripoli; Madison lied about the plot to seize Baton Rouge; and Monroe lied about American involvement in the Peruvian Revolution. Wilson called for “open covenants, openly arrived at,” yet he gave part of the Trentino and the Trieste Peninsula to Italy because he was bamboozled by a New York Italian-American Congressman name LaGuardia. Eisenhower signed a treaty with Franco, which was never submitted to the Senate, and funds were never appropriated by the House, yet the bases were built — one by the sea, two on land. That was why Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire could find $2,000 toilet seats in appropriation bills — the money secretly diverted to Spain. Then, of course, there was the U-2 incident. Johnson lied about the battle in the Gulf of Tonkin. Nixon, Ford, and the entire majority and minority leadership of the House and Senate lied about the American bombing of Cambodia. When it comes to foreign policy, most leaders do not tell the truth. In 1810, Jefferson wrote a letter specifically defending such behavior, as long as such action ended well. What good is it, he wrote, to scrupulously obey the constitution if in the end you lose the country and its constitution?

Marvin Olasky in The American Leadership Tradition (1999) insists that one cannot truly compartmentalize morality and public service: flawed morality leads to flawed leadership. Perhaps. But neither the citizens nor historians seem to agree. From David and Solomon, Alexander and Caesar, Harun al-Rashid, Ferdinand and Isabella,

Page 204

Charles V and Philip II, Suleiman the Magnificent and Kublai Khan, and Peter the Great and Catherine the Great to Jefferson, Hamilton, Jackson, Polk, Wilson, the Roosevelts, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Clinton, great leaders have not been squeaky clean. It may seem ironic, but in the latest impeachment the House entrusted the leadership of the impeachment to a distinguished-looking representative who had publicly advocated his right to violate political and moral laws if it so suited him.

Really, does one think of Catherine’s numerous abortions while walking through the Hermitage, or of James I’s bisexuality when reading the Bible he authorized, or of “the Hamilton Woman” when relating the accomplishments of Lord Nelson, or of Sally Hemings when reading the Declaration of Independence? Standing in the Sistine Chapel, does one consider that it was painted by a homosexual on the orders of a Pope who was more famous for his military exploits than for his piety, in order to honor his relative, a previous Pope who is best known for organizing a plot to kill members of the Medici family?

Perfection may be found in heaven, but here on earth all is a bit flawed.

Page 205