Trump vs. Clinton: How Much Does Character Count?

Bret Stephens is blind to his own contradictions. We will grant him leniency because we suspects that he is trying to fit in at the New York Times.

Today, he lectures us on the importance of character in our leaders. It is a fair point. He asserts that conservatives believe that culture trumps policy. And thus, that good policy is for nothing if our leader has bad character. 

Does anyone but Stephens believe that conservatives diminish the importance of policy... or of the composition of the courts?

In his words:

The answer depends on your definition. Here’s one I’ve always liked: “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society,” said the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan. To which he added: “The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”

Conservatives used to believe in their truth. Want to “solve” poverty? All the welfare dollars in the world won’t help if two-parent families aren’t intact. Want to foster democracy abroad? It’s going to be rough going if too many voters reject the foundational concept of minority rights.

But, if liberals want to change the culture, by court decisions and bureaucratic edicts, don't conservatives need to fight back?

Stephens is seriously torqued over Donald Trump’s character flaws. He is not alone. We have on this very blog pointed out many of them over the past two and a half years. So we do not feel remiss and do not feel that we have ignored the obvious.

How to have more two-parent families… a good question it is. Surely, conservatives have strongly supported such families. We recall that Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, believed that it takes a village to raise a child… because that’s the way they do it in more primitive cultures. In a moment of Rousseauvian delirium, Hillary wanted us all to pretend that we live in a primitive Stone Age village.

As for fostering democracy abroad, which we recall as a Wilsonian revenant that took up residence in the mind of George W. Bush, we have not succeeded at it. And, by the way, who doesn’t believe in minority rights? A nation that elected Barack Obama to the presidency in order to support minority rights and to do penance for our sins—can you think of another reason?—is not deficient in respecting minority rights.

But, here is the kicker: Stephens still wishes that Hillary had won? He does not offer a ringing endorsement of her character. He says not a word about her character, or about the fine character of her husband, the sexual abuser in chief. He says not a word about her role as enabler in chief— bullying any woman who would have accused her husband of sexual harassment. He does not even say a word about all the men in the media and entertainment who have recently been exposed as sexual harassers and even rapists-- all of whom supported Bill and Hillary Clinton. And, all of whom must have felt that Hillary had given them permission to behave as her husband behave. Stephens says not a word about her private server, the deleted emails, her corruption and dishonesty, Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation, her disastrous conduct of foreign policy—you get the picture. 

Stephens does not defend the character of the Clintons, America's Grifters in Chief. And he says not a word about Hillary's pathetic media tour, where she has shown the singular bad grace to blame everyone but herself for her disastrous presidential campaign.

Stephens says not a word about Hillary Clinton’s character because the American people have already judged it to be extremely wanting. Had the Democrats nominated a candidate with character than candidate would be sitting in the White House right now. They did not. The American people knew what the brilliant Bret Stephens does not know: that when it came to bad character, the choice between Trump and Clinton was a toss-up. A lot of people did not like Trump. But they liked Hillary less. So people voted for policy.