The good man desires the same thing with all his soul.
This brief but profound sentence sums up Aristotle's teaching on the good man. We can understand this sentence by starting with Aristotle's examination of the bad or weak man. He struggles with doing what is right and often does what he knows to be bad. He is always in need of breaking with or turning away from his thoughts and actions. He lives in a state of conflict with himself and others. As a result of often doing what is bad, he is full of unhappy memories and expects the same for the future.
Contrary to the bad or the weak man is the good man. He knows what is good and desires it with all his soul. He is not torn between what is good and bad. He is not in a state of conflict with himself. Since he consistently does what is good, he is at peace. In pursuing what is good, he is able to create a good life for himself and for those around him. He is full of happy memories and expects a similar future. He is a man of hope - not fanciful hope but hope based on experience.
What does all this have to do with American politics and the upcoming election? The purpose of politics is to organize the community to bring about the fundamental goods of life. Since the bad man or the weak man struggles between good and evil and often does what is bad, it would be unwise to elect this man into office. He would bring about a mix of good and bad, often more bad than good. On the contrary, the good man, in desiring and pursuing what is good with all his soul, will consistently bring about what is good for him and for others.
We must elect the good man to be our leader, or at least the better man. Only he is capable of bringing about what is good for the country. Choosing the good man is not an act of chance. We can discover and recognize him by examining his actions, for the good man spends his time in virtuous activity.
The candidates for president and vice president understand these principles. This is why they present their records and life stories. They want you to recognize them as the person who has consistently worked for the good of Americans. If their record reveals that they have pursued bad things, they will distort their record, try to keep it hidden or use some distraction. In my observations of the presidential candidates, Barack Obama is guilty of this.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
During a Democratic primary debate between Hillary Clinton and Obama, he was asked about his relationship with William Ayers. This is a perfectly valid question given that we come to know a person by their actions. It is even more valid since we become friends with people we have similarities with.
In the 1970s, Ayers bombed a judge's house, the NYPD headquarters, the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. He was a domestic terrorist, but he is also an unrepentant domestic terrorist. As the saying goes, he who does not repent cannot change. The New York Times published an interview with Ayers about his memoir on Sept. 11, 2001, not knowing what would happen on that day. In this interview, Ayers said he does not regret bombing and should have done more.
Obama was president of the board of directors for Ayers' education program, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Stanley Kurtz of the Wall Street Journal studied the grant and found that Ayer's goal was to "raise the political consciousness" of students in public schools. Obama and Ayers were also chairs on the Woods Fund in Chicago for many years. There was a political gathering for Obama in Ayers' house when he started running for the Illinois Senate.
In spite of all this work between these men, in the debate, Obama said Ayers is some guy who lives in his neighborhood. He said Ayers did detestable things when Obama was 8 years old. Obama claimed guilt by association without mentioning all their work together. Obama clearly used distraction techniques and minimized the relationship to hide this from the American people.
While running for president, Obama repudiated and broke with his pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright blamed the events of Sept. 11 on the U.S. to loud applause from his congregation. He said the U.S. government invented AIDS to kill blacks. He spoke pejoratively against whites and Jews.
In another relationship, Obama acknowledged exercising poor judgment in having his friend Tony Rezko help him buy his home. Rezko was a major contributor to Obama's campaigns. Obama backed Rezko's work in the Illinois Senate. Rezko is now in prison for fraud.
We become friends with people we have things in common with or when there is something to unite us. What united Obama with Ayers, Wright and Rezco? Obama would have no need to break with these men if these relationships were between good men and based on virtuous activity. There is no need to break friendships with good people.
My perception of Obama is that he is of weak character. He is still in conflict with himself. He does not pursue what is good with all his soul and is incapable of consistently bringing about what is good for him and for others. He will not make a
good leader.
