Requirements for Office

-
Amidst all this scandal here with our wonderful Governer and all the hoop-la leading up to the Obama election, I've been thinking a lot about how to evaluate candidates. It seems to be that it simply comes down to two factors (in this order):

• Character
• Competence

To me, if someone has both of those things, then I'm good to go. Of course, there's a lot packed into those two words, but it seems to me that it boils down to that.

Character: This, to me, is the most important factor. No matter how competant, how experienced, how knowledgable a candidate might be, if they don't have that Moral Restraint, then there is a problem. They will be corrupted by the office - there's almost no way around it these days. However, on the flip side, if they have a good base of character, but are light on experience, they may apply their character, the value of hard-work, the value of reaching out for help and eventually become competent. It's very difficult to learn good character, but having good character, it's possible to learn competency.

Competence: A person must have some sort of background to qualify them for office. Relevant experience, training, previous office-holder, etc. seems invaluable to the position. A basic shrewdness and wisdom (I'm loath to use the term "intelligence" as that seems so elitist to me. Just having some good 'ol brains is what I'm talking about here.) seems indispensible. However, if the person is light on this count, but stong in Character, I believe that the job won't necessarily be a total disaster, but it would be a steep challenge.

Of course, the ideal is to have a generous supply of both of those. It seems that (in Illinois, at least) we seem to be distinctly lacking in both.
-

The Moral Restraint

-
In a previous post, I touched on a theme that I'd like to build upon here.

Earlier, I said that "I do believe that human nature tends to hunger for more and more power without ever being satisfied and those who already posses a great amount of power are especially susceptible to this hunger...human nature being what it is, those in power are constantly trying to find the loophole, go around, change, or just run ramshod over any rules that get in their way. It's a constant struggle between their power and the rules in place.

Given that our human nature is inherently greedy and hungry for power (and that belief is foundational to a conservative and Christian perspective), what do we do? How do we contain this tendency? I think this is the very question that our founding fathers wrestled with.

In order to have some sort of civilized society, we must have structures in place that necessarily puts some people in a position of power over others. How do we contain those powers?

One thing to try and do is to create a system that has as many checks and balances as possible and spread that power around so that no one person has all the power. That's one of the crucial things that was established in this country. However, as can be clearly seen in just the most recent financial crisis, the government tends to take more power when it can - especially during times of crisis. Just look at the Great Depression and the New Deal. Look at the executive powers given to the president during WWII. Look at the consolidation of power on the Supreme Court. Historically, those 9 justices did not have the power they have today.

No, even the best of systems will eventually fall due to the power-hungry, greedy nature of mankind.

So, what do we do? Is all lost?

No.

There was one other critical element that the founding fathers knew about. It was, in fact, the very foundation and life-blood of our democracy. That other critical element was the Moral Restraint. The only way to counter-act the natural tendency within politicians and those in power from currupting the system and claiming more power is to have a counterbalance within themselves to keep them from those actions. It is this Moral Restraint that allows a leader to serve in office for the good of the people and not for his own gain. It is this Moral Restraint that can keep an elected official from taking bribes. It is this Moral Restraint that can keep a judge from declaring from the bench what the law should be, rather than what it is.

This element of Moral Restraint is why the character of the person running for office is so important. In fact, if a person running for office is experienced, has plans, judgment - whatever - but his character is proven to be bad, that person should not be elected to a position of leadership. It's that simple.

Would you trust your money to a currupt banker? Would you trust your children with a depraved babysitter? Would you trust your aging parents to cruel doctors?

Then why in the world do we trust our country to corrupt, power-hungry politicions with no moral restraint?!?

That has GOT to change! We must no longer discount Moral Restraint as an optional characteristic in those we elect to office. It MUST become a priority again.

But how are we going to find leaders that have Moral Restraint when the Moral Restraint in our country is generally falling? We won't.

We must begin by building up Moral Restraint on a local level. Our country must recover its roots of belief in God. Our country must turn back or we are destined to fall. It's that simple.