Hey, everyone, this post is in response to a recent remark (and ensuing argument) comparing Pres. Bush to a character named Sedgwick Bell from the movie the Emperor's Club. If you haven't seen the movie, my review is that it was ok - maybe a bit like mixing Mr. Holland's Opus with Dead Poets Society. Anyway, enjoy. Oh, also, I take a brief moment to make fun of someone that suggested outlawing alcohol as a cure to society's ills.

Um. hi, everyone. Just thought I'd add my own little, miniature comment in, hopefully to stir up controversy or whatever you will.

First off, guitargod, we tried the outlawing alcohol thing. As far as anyone can tell, it seems to mostly just provide an opportunity for the onset of massive organized crime. One figures that if someone is going to make money of the sale and consumption of alcohol, it may as well be the government, rather than the criminals (this is your cue to make many semantics related jokes).

Now, on to moralizing, the ethics of presidents, and the point.

Let's do those in reverse order.

It seems to me that the point of this movie isn't just about morals or ethics or rich, spoiled, machiavellian kids. It seems to me to be a story about the mark one leaves behind at the end of one's life, one's legacy. There are those who become powerful, respected, famous, rich; they are conquerors, bringers of peace or war, fighters, revolutionaries, economists, et cetera, etc. Yet, at the end of their lives, it is possible that they may look back and discover that though they did many great things, they were not, as such, great men. The purpose of the rest of the movie is to try to define the things that truly do define a great man. Or woman, I suppose, though that exact point was never mentioned.

Presidents Bush and Clinton seem to be remarkably different men, in the sense that they each tend to represent their own party's ideal and their opposing party's most terrible. And I think this is primarily because the ethical focus in each political party is directed in almost opposing directions.

Specifically, democrats at the core and at this point in time care very about personal ethics and care much more about global ethics. For example, your traditional democrat wouldn't give two craps (if you'll excuse my french) about how many women a man has slept with or how many times he's read the bible or even how regular is his routine. Beyond that, they typically become concerned when a president starts to introduce his own, personal beliefs into the national dialogue, rather than his profesional beliefs. Clinton is an excellent example of such a man, but an even more perfect example is that of Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Now here was a truly reprehensible man; here was the man who ordered the Asian internment camps during WWII, yet the moment Warren accepted the tennants of Supreme Court Justice, his personal motives were pushed aside and decisions were made based upon a professional and moral understanding of the Constitution and its amendments.

Meanwhile, to modern Republicans (and I'm not speaking of you old school republicans who are slowly discovering you are really libertarians - I'm talking neo-cons), the notion of putting aside one's faith and personal morals isn't reprehensible; it's inconceivable. One is guided by one's values and acts upon them. In a sense, presidents are elected based upon what they believe and do personally, not what they do professionally. Under Bush's tenure as president, the nation has fought two wars, slid into a recession (which probably isn't his fault), failed to recooperate from that recession in any quick and meaningful way (which is certainly at least partially his fault), enmeshed inself into a turmoil that is remenicent of (but no where near as bad as) Vietnam, failed to make abortion illegal, slowed and possibly even reversed some work in environmental recovery, and become more politically polarized than it has been in a century. On the other hand he doesn't like gay people, abortion, terrorists, or the nation of Iran (Saudi Arabia is cool, though).

Sorry, a little sarcasm popped in there, please, allow me to continue.

The thing is, President Bush does appear to be a very personally moral man in the American sense. He is not a womanizer. He reads the bible regularly. He wants to protect whatever sanctity marriage has left. He talks like he isn't from the Northeast, even if he doesn't know how to pronounce Nevada. These things are real, important things, and I apologize if my personal bias makes them sound in any way trivial, such is not my intent. These things are either unimportant or, if taken in a specific light, immoral to a core democrat, yet they are vital to the minds of the core republican. Reagan was a template (albeit a slightly less relgious one) for these values.

The moral of all this is that neither man truly fulfills the legacy of Sedgwick Bell. He was personally amoral, but he was also professionally amoral. As such, it is very easy to see the faults of either president in this one man, if you just lean in one direction. As I'm sure you can tell, I obviously lean one way, but I am certainly not professional enough in this field to say that my way of thinking is the correct one. When hiring someone, I like to look at track records. As far as I'm concerned, it's equally reasonable to look at background history.