Thoughts from Dr. Joe: Are these really our best presidential offerings?

We live in a country of about 323 million people. Is a choice between the likes of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders the best we can do? Have we become too jaded to disavow the perspective that leaders should be worthy of their constituents? I find it difficult to imagine political candidates more absurd to our nation’s well-being than what is currently on stage.

We have Donald Trump, a name-calling bully with little understanding of world affairs. Also, there’s Hillary Clinton, whose unfavorable rating as of this week was in the neighborhood of 55%, leaves one to question the validity of her character. Can she be trusted? Finally, Bernie Sanders, a candidate with no foreign policy and who openly embraces the banner of socialism.

When we were kids we were told that anyone can grow up to be president. I now see the viability in that statement.

In early Roman culture, the importance of leadership was paramount. To demonstrate this, the Romans created the term gravitas and believed it to be an absolute virtue. It is translated as weight, seriousness, and dignity. It connotes a certain substance or depth of character. Our political candidates are lacking gravitas.

Plato attempted to explain this phenomenon in his writing called “The Republic.” There, he attempted to decipher the best type of rulers. He coined the phrase, “The Philosopher King,” which was integral to a just state. Plato shows progressiveness when he contends that notable rulers should be both men and women and evolve from a pool of philosopher kings and queens.

What appears to be most important in his assertion is that leadership should evolve from merit and virtue. Thus, the evolution of the philosopher king evolves because, according to Plato, philosophers understood the great ideas, which were synonymous with virtue.

Socrates in his “Dialogues” wrote: “Until those who are called kings become genuine and adequate philosophers, cities will have no rest from evils.” In other words, the philosopher is the only person who can be trusted to rule well. Philosophers are both morally and intellectually suited to rule. Morally, because it is in their nature to love truth and learning so much that they are free from the greed and lust that tempts others to abuse power. Intellectually, because they alone can gain full knowledge of reality. According to the philosopher Martin Gross, “We live in a world in which politics has replaced philosophy.”

Marcus Aurelius, the first renowned philosopher king, was a Stoic. His writings, “Meditations,” were a literary monument of service and duty and was the foundation of kingship during the classical period. He expressed that kings should be philosophers, rather than only philosophers should be kings. “Meditations” was partially the antidote for what Lord Alton, a member of the British Parliament, said centuries later, “Power tends to corrupt, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But Thomas Jefferson and his cohorts knew this and thereby established the checks and balances: the executive, judicial and legislative.

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodies,” is a Latin phrase from the work of Roman poet Juvenal. Translated, it means “Who will guard the watchmen.” I believe that’s we voters. How did these candidates transition through the political process? Is this the best of America? Too often when considering a candidate for office many voters rely more on what they see and hear than on facts, history and logic, or learned experience.

I am sorry I have no answers to our plight. I only offer a perspective. When we look more toward the character of our candidates, perhaps we will conclude that the best candidate to vote for this year is one whose name is not on the ballot.

--

JOE PUGLIA is a practicing counselor, a retired professor of education and a former officer in the Marines. Reach him at doctorjoe@ymail.com. Visit his website at doctorjoe.us.