Whatever Happened to the Temperate Man?

Within this nihilistic age we have come to as humans, filled with confused angst and anger, one has to wonder whatever happened to the temperate man. There was a time when we chose our office holders from among temperate men seized of honesty, humility, patience, sincerity and simplicity. Now, it seems that we universally select those whose excess hubris is extolled as a virtue. We do not seek the man seized of good sense and sensibilities, but rather, clamor around those we once deemed to be the village idiots. Apathy, with the current direction of this country, appears to rule the majority which is without any viable vision supplied by its office holders.
We have, in the past, selected our leaders for their demonstrated ability of self-restraint and moderation. We did so as a practiced way of insuring that those whom we placed in charge would likely work to find common ground and thereby serve both extremes of any issue better than an extremist would of an opposing extreme. These former leaders moved with great caution so as to insure that the best path chosen would lead to the greater happiness of all rather than of the few. In working out a path for their vision, they would deliberate with gravitas, pietas and dignitas.
Who among those contesting for office in this day and age can be said to be seized of seriousness in manner or bearing – which among them have gravitas? When I listen to and watch the news media, one of the first things I look for is the demeanor of those seeking to be put into office. Are these people playing to my emotions or to my intellect? All are frustrated and angry with the way things are in the country but what decision made in anger ever worked well?
When one listens to a candidate closely, all that can be distilled from their shallow rhetoric is an emotional appeal. Opposing candidates seek to foster a fear in voters that if a vote is cast for the opponent, certain doom will follow. If they cannot generate substantial fear, these same candidates fall back on disparaging their opponent without regard for any truthfulness in their charges. Stripped of emotional appeal, candidates offer no substance by which they can be compared. Would that we chose to follow those who offer intellect rather than emotion as the basis of their position.
I was present when the consummate office holder, John F. Kennedy, exhorted, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” I was immediately caught up with the emotion of pride but, upon reflection; saw that there was something of a needed change in the direction of the country; which change I intellectually embraced. Kennedy set the tone and tenor needed for the launch of the American Peace Corps as well as space exploration. His challenge was sustained through the efforts of his successor who brought us the Civil Rights Act and the Great Society. Most recently, an office contestant commenced her bid by asking, “How’s that ‘changey-hopey thang werkin fer ya’?” To me, her question was an intellectual affront and nothing more. The only emotion I felt was disgust.
Who among those contesting for office in this day and age can be said to be seized of a sense of duty ruled by compassion for those they seek to govern – who among them have pietas? When I listen to and watch the news media, I look to discern precisely where loyalties are placed. Those who repeatedly proffer that my welfare is best served by Wall Street fail to make even a superficial case that their loyalty is to the common man. Those of Wall Street make up the bulk of the 1% of this country which holds almost 40% of the wealth. Making Wall Street and those who participate in Wall Street more secure and wealthy does not inure to my benefit. I have waited in vain, since President Reagan, for something to trickle my way. It would seem to me that the contestant who does not oblige him or her-self to Wall Street is likely to be more loyal to the common man.
In this day and age where all office holders promise an in-vogue transparency in their governance, it appears that such is truly a practiced deceit. When one seeks office taking huge sums of money from the business community and the rich to gain office and thereafter legislates to protect the identity of contributors, the transparency pledge is a broken pledge; or, at best, a meaningless pledge. And one who fails to keep one’s pledge is one who is not seized of pietas.
Who among those contesting for office in this day and age can be said to be seized of esteem flowing from merit – which among them has dignitas? Of a past time, office holders achieved their positions only after demonstrating that they had full command of problem solving techniques learned through years of study and observation. To them, it was declared, “Palmam qui meruit ferat” – “Let he who merits the palm bear it.” This declaration was based upon demonstrated achievement, not mere popularity. We looked beyond the rhetoric to one’s deeds and accomplishments.
Within this last election, we had numerous national candidates, several victorious, who have never held public office. Though their qualifications for office we called to account, the voters seized upon pathetically misleading slogans and statements to discern that the office holders were qualified for lofty positions. We had candidates who garnered a lot of attention from the mass media not because of qualifications, but rather, upon the arcane positions they were taking as the antithesis of the current administration.
When I think of the temperate man seized with dignitas, I also think of those who have put duty, honor and country before all else. There is a lot to be said of a man whose esteem was earned on the battlefields in defense of this country. The battlefields taught them the horror of war from which they received a valuable lesson about being temperate. They would not be as readily inclined to induce war to exercise will or dominion over others.
President Obama in his inaugural address exhorted Americans to embrace a ‘new era of responsibility’. When I heard the catchphrase, I was caught off guard and not a little disappointed. I was expecting a statement of vision from someone who, at the same time, promised change. Instead, I was being cautioned that we, as Americans, were being called upon to move away from the irresponsible behaviors of the past. Whereas change in the conduct of government was most definitely needed, there was nothing in the message which showed a true positive vision to America. In itself, the ‘new era’ message forced one to look back with a microscope rather than forward with a telescope.
Whereas Obama was urging us to abandon the policies of the previous administration, it occurred to me that there was an accurate though unintended assessment regarding our selection of office holders. It is the American people who failed to find and elect salons seized of gravitas, pietas and dignitas. It is the American people who bear the burden not the mendacious fools seeking office. So, how do we American people abandon the past and embark on a new era of responsibility? How do we find and elect people to office who are temperate? How do we determine whether a candidate is seized of gravitas, pietas and dignitas?
In the short haul, I would suggest that we will not be able to do so unless we have help. In this day and age of light speed exchange of brief information we need assistance in assuring that candidates who are putting themselves forward ‘merit the palm.’ Corporations and businesses are not to be trusted because their sole aim is to maximize profit at the expense of others. Religions have never been trustworthy and are constantly seeking power and dominion over others to their own ends. The only viable institution is the free press but it is only as worthy as its willingness to adopt and enforce a code of ethics.
I would challenge the free press to revisit the code of ethics to which most all have given lip service. The free press needs to seek a way to balance the First Amendment privilege of freedom of speech as against responsibility of speech. The institution should develop a meaningful way of policing, if not punishing, its members who fail to meet the strictures of the code of ethics. If, as an institution, they are successful in doing so, public trust will follow and we Americans will be accorded the ability to closely examine candidates for public office.
In a longer haul, we need to look to our educational institutions for help. We need our institutions to step up and educate future Americans in virtues in addition to language arts, math, social studies and science. We should be producing a next generation seized of the ability to discern honesty, humility, patience, sincerity and simplicity in others. These new age students should be able to divorce emotion from logic, discern double-speak, examine loyalties and look for candor. They need to be able to compare credentials and find those most qualified to be elected. They need to be able to identify the temperate man better than the current generations which are mishandling their right to vote.