Character Matters

This morning, we all woke up to the news about Michael Flynn resigning from his position as President Trump’s National Security Adviser. The formal excuse for his ouster was that he lied to cover up his totally legal actions. What?

Because, apparently, Trump holds people in his administration to a high moral standard.

The questions regarding the timeline of his discussions with Russian officials about U.S. sanctions against them just became too uncomfortable for the Trump administration to bear.

Before his soon-to-be boss was inaugurated, Flynn called a Russian ambassador on the day Obama levied punishment for overblown charges of meddling in our election affairs. Even if that’s considered fine and dandy in transition etiquette, under whose directive did his phone call occur? And, why did Trump congratulate Putin in a tweet the next day for his mild reaction to the sanctions? But that’s none of my business.

This story actually just reinforced my thoughts resulting from a Facebook exchange I experienced over the weekend. I had posted my review of the movie 42 in a conservative Constitutionalist group. The administrator of the group replied, “WTH does this have to do with the Constitution or Conservativism?”

I replied with a one-word alliteration: “Character.”

He continued to lecture me on the lengthy and complex group rules into which he had invested much time and ego, requiring all members to make only posts and comments on and about his narrow list of approved subjects, among other specified parameters of discussion.

My first thought was, “Either he didn’t read my article, breaking his own rules by posting uninformed judgments, or he doesn’t consider the subject of morality to be pertinent to conservative Constitutionalism. Frightening.

In public reply, he instructed me to read the group rules and he would be “glad” to answer any questions I might have. My question was, “Why do you need me to reread the rules?” as he had not cited any violations.

While awaiting his reply, I continued the discussion about my original post, including a link to a comprehensive list of quotes by our nation’s founders regarding the high standard of character necessary to a successful Republic. This was ignored.

The administrator eventually replied to my policy question by citing his paragraph decreeing that all posts must pertain to either the Constitution, Conservatism, history, or the founders, and the mandate to invite discussion. In reply, I commented: “Done and done.” He “liked” that response.

I guess I should have added one more “done” because, by then, I was most sincerely done with a group whose administrator has such a hard time considering the topic of character as an essential ingredient to Conservatism.