Is it true that "Policy is Character"?

 They say that power corrupts, and I believe it's true.

I also believe that power is a particularly strong aphrodisiac for narcissistic personalities. That's amateur psychologizing, sure, but I think history provides us with plenty of evidence.

Then again, I think there's a fair amount of narcissism in everyone.

Given these three assertions, it follows that we should probably be somewhat mistrustful of anyone who seeks power. This is not to lump all people under the same rubric. Some are more narcissistic than others. Some are balanced (aka, mature) and others unbalanced (lacking in self-control).

As a corollary to all that, organizations that are constituted for the express purpose of getting and keeping power (political parties) should be looked on with a great deal of skepticism.

Thus, the idolizing of politicians seems a particularly dangerous trend, but as someone once said, our hearts are idol-factories. If our attention is frequently on, say, sports, our idols will be sports stars. Movies, movie stars. And if our focus is always politics, our idol-factories will produce politician-idols. All this is as common as dew in the morning.

I thought the idolization of Barrack Obama was a pretty serious matter, but the idolization of Donald Trump (hey, he even looks like a golden calf!) has been an undeniable and disastrous phenomenon.

Although I have never before admired Joe Biden much, I have come to admire him this year for his studied moderation, his calm and balanced demeanor. He even seems (shall I say it?) sort of wise!

But that is not an endorsement of all his policy-positions. Some of them are terrible and unwise. Still, I'm grateful for that demeanor. Attitude isn't everything, but it's not nothing. Maturity matters. We have learned that in the last 4 years. Immaturity in power has consequences. Maturity in power should have better consequences. At least I hope it does.

We are probably all familiar with the Churchillian argument, "Character is destiny." Thus, bad character, when given authority, will breed bad outcomes. Not necessarily all it's outcomes will be bad, mind you. Sometimes a leader of bad character will throw a policy-bone to a certain demographic whose support he needs. But once that support is established, he'll turn to feed his narcissistic needs. Most of his effort will be put into policies that simply serve his various lusts or help him keep and increase power.

I ran into a new formulation yesterday (at least new to me). It was this: "Policy is character." This is a version of the argument that we should never mind what the man says or Tweets (stupid or nasty or even racist stuff) but look at his deeds. His policies. That's what's important. You might have hoped your imaginary person-of-character would accomplish this, this, and this. Well look, this bounder, this bully, this serial prevaricator, has accomplished, what, maybe two out of three of your desired policy outcomes! You should get real!

This is a strangely utilitarian definition of "character." Instead of something that resides in the person, integral and predictable, it is now merely a label you put on a leader after you've see his outcomes. But more importantly, it should also be duly noted that the bounder/bully/prevaricator that you are justifying has also produced two or three (or seven or eight) policy-outcomes that were completely in keeping with his bad character. There were a lot more bad outcomes than good. 

In other words, these tricksters pull a whole variety of rabbits out of their hats. Some of them are quite nice. But for a lover of power (see how I'm finally bringing this back to the start?) the policies were always simply gambits to gain, keep, and increase power. Some of them might have been policies you approved us, but what about all the others? It's at least arguable that the dangers inherent in giving power to a narcissist-liar far outweigh the occasional satisfactory outcomes. And I think the past week has proven this to be true as "potential" dangers became real outcomes (it's not the only proof, but it stands in particularly stark relief just now).

To say that "Policy is character" is to fob off the whole question of character (and its connection to outcomes). It is in fact to deny that character is destiny after all, and I suspect one would only argue such a thing if one were trying hard to justify oneself for supporting a bad character in the first place.