The Ethics of Elections

Responses to the presidential debates often focus on individual performances. The pundits focus on the candidates’ pithiness and well-crafted punch lines. Our conversations recap the body blows and knock downs. I believe something critical is lacking – let’s call it an ethics of elections. These ethical problems arise from a hyper focus on the individual.

Strong individuals attract our notice by their brave spirit and convincing self-expression. Aggressive and critical declarations receive the most applause in the debates. That kind of approbation got the current President elected. And then the vitriol deepened the partisanship in our country. There is a danger in the adoration of tough personalities.

Torah offers a contrasting approach. 

Moses, our greatest Jewish leader, was the humblest of men and wasn’t even an adept speaker.

And there’s something more. We also learn from Torah that great leaders inspire us to come together, setting aside the primacy of the individual. In parshat Terumah, God instructed Moses to tell the people to build a sanctuary so that God can dwell among them. (Exodus 25:9) The Hebrew people came forward with exceeding generosity to build a place for God’s presence, a mishkan. This construction project emphasized bringing God into the community and brought out the generosity in each individual.

Who calls us together today for the collective good? Perhaps we should save our applause for the leaders who channel the godly quality of devotion to community above the promotion of self.

British politician David Blunkett summarized the tension of “balancing the common good with the freedom and liberty to exercise that individuality [which] has been and remains a challenge for those committed to democracy.” In other words, the future of our democracy rests in the hands of the voters whose attraction to individuality might exceed their appreciation of service to the community.

Approval of bold personalities fits neatly in a society that keenly focuses on the individual. Perhaps the dysfunction in our democracy reflects our preoccupation with individualism. I suspect we are in an era when many focus more on their unique concerns rather than the collective needs of America (if not the world). Could it be that Americans are making election choices merely by asking, “what does it mean for me?”

We are lacking in a morality of choosing leadership. An ethics of elections would carefully and consciously balance the needs of the collective against our personal preferences. When we are lacking in a spirituality of electoral participation, we are wooed by egotistical characters and wind up with leaders who are grandiloquent. There is danger in our admiration of the live wire, the quick-witted, and the bombast.

What appeals to us in the egotist? Perhaps, in their distinctive and strong personality, we see a representation of what our own individuality could be. Perhaps, we wish we too could have the perfect comeback, the confidence of conviction and the demeanor of success. The power of the pompous is no longer derided. We have confused amusing communicators with dutiful leaders. Individuality is on a steroidal trajectory.

The better alternative, says the Jewish tradition, is to seek humility in our leaders, generosity in our hearts, and godliness dwelling among us. Tell me which of the presidential candidates brings forward these qualities and I’ll tell you who I am supporting for President.

R’ Evan J. Krame