Government_Leadership_2

=**Character**=
 * Resolved: To Choose Character over Reputation Any Time They Conflict**

Integrity ensures that a person doesn't intentionally do wrong. Words like honorable, honest, trustworthy, dutiful, and faithful describe a person with integrity. John Wooden's three principles, if followed, would lead to integrity. These principles were never lie, never cheat, and never steal. Wooden's three principles were really what was responsible for the growth of the West since the Old Testament.
 * Integrity:**
 * __Never Lie__: A person's worth is his word. We all want our statements to be trusted as truth. One should states the facts as he/she knows them, not how he/she wants them to be. Those who lie to impress others care more about reputation than integrity. Jack Canfield wrote "In reality, lying is the product of low self-esteem - the belief that you and your abilities are not good enough to get what you want...the false belief that you cannot handle the consequences of people knowing the truth about you - which is simply another way of saying I'm not good enough." Liars warp a person's character over time. The Judeo-Christian belief is that lying comes from the author of all lies - Satan. Many years ago, Walter Scott wrote "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first, we practice to deceive." Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when speaking to others. Don't allow yourself to be deceived. Internal lies always lead to external ones.
 * __Never Cheat__: When a person is cheated, trust is thrown out the window and rarely returns. Ones who cheat usually cheats themselves since no one will trust or follow a cheater. One who brags about cheating would most likely be willing to cheat you. Cheating, liars, and stealers rub off on those who hang around them. Success built by cheating is never long-lasting. Great businesses are built by people with old-fashioned integrity. The story of Andy Roddick, a tennis player, is a great example of integrity. He was playing in the 2005 Italian Masters tennis tournament. It was match point for the championship against Fernando Verdasco - Roddick wins the championship if he gets just one more point and can win on this serve. Verdasco's hit was called out of bounds by the line judge, which meant Roddick wins the championship. However, Roddick refused to accept the point explaining to the line judge that it was "in" showing the mark in the clay where the ball hit. Verdasco had already moved towards the net accepting defeat, but Roddick was unwilling to take the win that way. It wouldn't have been cheating because the line judge made the call. Most people would have taken the victory, but Roddick isn't most people. Impressed with his honesty, the line judge changed the ruling and the game continued. Amazingly, Verdasco came back and won. However, Roddick won a victory that was much larger - a victory of personal integrity. Roddick's integrity was worth more to him than the amount of money he would have won being the champion. He'll forever be part of ethics and character studies. Maintaining integrity and self-respect was more important to him than winning.
 * __Never Steal__: One of the biggest reasons for decline in the West is the epidemic of stealing in today's culture. The Robert Half Personnel staffing agency has calculated that time theft (deliberate actions of employees to waste time while on the clock) costs the U.S. economy approximately $70 billion a year. Many wouldn't steal directly from their employer, but don't mind wasting time. Why? It's easy to get away with, but if the only reason for not stealing directly is the risk of getting caught, then integrity certainly needs repaired.

This goes beyond integrity and requires courage to fulfill its high calling. Integrity is not doing wrong; character is doing what is right. Take the hypothetical situation: John bullies Billy; Tom is watching but doesn't participate; Tom has integrity for not doing what was wrong, but to have character, he has to have the courage to move beyond integrity to do what is right and help Billy. Fear of conflict keeps one with integrity from having character. Choosing comfort over convictions will keep one from moving from integrity to character. Leaders of character refuse to surrender principles.
 * Character:**

Developing character is important. Character = integrity + courage. Only when a person's principles are being challenged do we see whether or not a person of integrity has the courage to be a person of character. Courage is the virtue that is most lacking today. Most people would rather have peace and affluence, minding their own business, than stand against oppression, especially if the oppression is not directed at them. Reverend Martin Neimoller was a Nazi prison camp survivor. He said, "First they arrested the Communists - but I was not a Communist, so I did nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats - but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then they arrested the trade unionists - and I did nothing because I was not one. And then they came for the Jews and then the Catholics, but I was neither a Jew nor a Catholic and I did nothing. At last they came and arrested me - and there was no one left to do anything about it." Character demands action to end injustice. How do we know the correct principles to stand by? We must have a moral guide to live by. Without a compass to know right from wrong, anything becomes permissible. Who says stealing is wrong? If 51% voted in favor of stealing, does that make it right? Of course not. Moral absolutes are based on the moral order inherent in the world. The Western world was based on Judeo-Christian principles from the Bible. With this moral foundation, the West produced freedom with order, wealth with morality, and charity with love. Declining over the past 100 years along with freedom, order, wealthy, morality, charity, and love, the West became a technological giant, but a moral midget.

Courage isn't pragmatism. Courage is defending the highest principles even when personal interest isn't at stake. Pragmatism is a determination to get involved only if it enhances one's position, power, or wealth. Pragmatism compromises one's highest principles for short-term personal advancements. If a leader's objectives aren't important enough for him to face his fears, then he isn't going to experience much success in leadership. What if David didn't have the courage to face Goliath? He would've compromised his faith for a false peace. He would've remained an unknown shepherd boy instead of becoming the king of Israel. In the same way, people without courage to face their Goliaths won't achieve mastery because they refuse to confront and learn from their challenges. Courage, in today's pragmatic world, is a lost virtue that must have a rebirth in order for character-based leadership to strive again. Without character, there is no leadership and without courage there is no character.

In terms of character, there's a struggle between exploiters and producers. One can either produce results through performance or search for ways to exploit other people's production. Producers create value by serving other people's needs, while exploiters plunder from producers to serve their own needs. People of character refuse to sell out at any price. Frederic Bastiat, the great 19th century French economist and stateman, wrote "Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain - and since labor is pain itself - it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it. When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder." Many try to avoid work looking for the avenue of plunder. Horace Greeley, a newspaper editor and famous 19th century politician, said "The darkest hour in any man's life is when he sits down to plan how to get money without earning it." It takes a person with impeccable character to withstand the temptation to exploit, choosing principles over profits by refusing to personally gain at the expense of others. George Washington willingly gave up power for justice. He could've demanded to be king or could've taken over with the military. He willingly gave up power.

Freedom and consumer power is important. The more government is involved, the more corporations and government are together, the less true competition for customers there is. In true free enterprise, the consumers have the real power since they choose where to buy. This forces businesses to be of good character. Exploiters often have socialism and state (government) power in mind. Exploiters say equality and fairness are what they want without clearly defining the terms. Socialism is an acid that decays the roots of freedom because socialism demands equal results but there's not equal effort. History proves when there are more exploiters than producers, society declines or falls. It's easier to join the "something for nothing" club.

Character (integrity, motive, and intent) + competence (capabilities, skills, results, and track record) = trust

He was an Austrian economist who spoke out in favor of free enterprise. He knew government spending sprees only lead to massive debt and unemployment. This was not a popular stance in the first half of the 20th century. There wasn't anywhere safe for him in Europe. He was wanted for being so outspoken in favor of free enterprise and had his Vienna apartment ransacked. His records were confiscated and his assets were frozen. He was of Jewish descent and known to be an arch-enemy of National Socialism (the Nazi style of government control).
 * Ludwig von Mises: Indomitable Character:**

He had personally steered Austria away from Communism, saved his country from hyperinflation that destroyed the Weimar Republic in Germany, and convinced many young socialist intellectuals to embrace the market. As a result, he became a political refugee. He fled to the U.S. with barely any money and no prospects for income. In an age of growing government (this was the time of the New Deal in American as there was massive government expansion and power under FDR - adding to the force shift), he was a defender of private property and an opponent of government intervention in the economy. No university would have him. However, he gradually rebuilt his life in America.

Mises lived by Virgil's Roman motto "Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it." He could've gotten positions teaching what he knew wasn't true. He could not do it. He maintained his intellectual integrity. In Austria in the 1920s, he slowed inflation and developed his own private seminars on economics since he was barred from universities in Austria that all taught Keynesian economics of high spending and debt. He predicted the severe economic disruptions due to the errors of Keynesian economics. It took much courage seeing as how he sustained personal and professional abuses. He also predicted the demise of Communism. He understood that truth is more important than rewards, recognition, or professional perks. Time proved him correct even though he didn't live to see it.

If Mises was right, why did and does the West tax and spend so much? The answer is a lack of character. "Follow the money" is the motive behind most politicians' questionable behaviors. FTM and his brother SFN (something for nothing) combine to make a powerful force. Since most people have a price, educators and politicians follow the money into supporting Keynesian policies and are rewarded for selling out their character and for supporting faulty economics, rationalizing their sellout by the pots of gold offered to them at the end of the rainbow. Modern politicians sell out their character for inflation because they are always short on two things - money to buy votes and the votes to obtain more money. Printing money and inflating the currency are Keynesian policies that give Western governments an unlimited money supply to buy more votes without raising taxes, thus avoiding the ire of a fooled electorate. Keynesian politicians don't seem to mind that inflated money loses its monetary value. Keynesian politicians leave a legacy of debt and deficit and can boast no tax increases but in reality inflated money is an unofficial tax on everyone since higher prices are the results of inflation. Most politicians are more concerned with votes and the short-term need of money. John Maynard Keynes when confronted about long-term consequences of Keynesian economics said "in the long run, we are all dead." Mises pointed all of this out in his day, which is why he was persecuted so vehemently.

Economists sell out their character for comfort, money, and power while individuals can advance by writing, teaching, and supporting Keynesian theories of government intervention. Why do many universities support this when it's proven to lead to long-term fiscal crises? FTM - Follow The Money! Government funds nearly all universities, especially the major universities (Pitt and Penn State are both funded by the state). They'll certainly support the candidate and theory that keeps the money coming. The same goes for public education.

Follow the money is a process that flows as follows: The government prints paper money stealing value from all Americans and taking some of the money to reward the educators, who help write propaganda in support of said governments, thus creating a cycle of advancement for the exploiters in both the political and education (most university level) fields. All of this is paid for by the masses who are unaware of the scheme and merely wonder why it becomes tougher each year to make a living. Politicians win by spending money that doesn't belong to them. Economists win by getting advancements for teaching flawed doctrine, and the people lose by declining in wealth and opportunities. Mises pointed out this scheme, refused to participate, and paid the price for his character-based stand by being blackballed from every major university teaching post even though he's recognized as one of the greatest economists of all time.

It's hard for anyone to take a stand when rewarded for bad behavior and punished for good behavior. Mises didn't give in to evil - he proceeded ever more boldly against it.

__Thinking Questions - Choose Character over Reputation__: 1. Why is character so important to a leader? 2. The example of Ludwig von Mises is very powerful. What stood out to you in his story? Do you know people in our world today that would compare to Mises? 3. Courage is vital to character...why? 4. Think of an instance where you or someone you know either displayed character or a lack of character. Explain. 5. What does it mean to intentionally build your character? 6. What will you take from this lesson and begin applying into your life?

Back to the Leadership main page