1
TESTING IT
Politics, Sports, Celebrity
Let there be some more test made of my metal,
Before so noble and so great a figure
Be stamped upon it.
—SHAKESPEARE, MEASURE FOR MEASURE
The test of greatness is the page of history.
—WILLIAM HAZLITT, TABLE-TALK
It goes to character. You don’t realize how important character is in the highest office in the land until you don’t have it.
—U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF, IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF DONALD JOHN TRUMP, JANUARY 24, 2020
Character Above All was the soaring title of a collection of essays on American presidents, by skilled observers including Doris Kearns Goodwin, Tom Wicker, David McCullough, and Peggy Noonan. The book was published in 1995. Viewed from the perspective of contemporary politics, it seems a lifetime ago. Noonan followed up her brief piece on Ronald Reagan—which, like the others, was initially delivered in a lecture series at the University of Texas at Austin—with a lengthier soft-focus panegyric called When Character Was King. These titles may seem at best nostalgic, and at worst deluded, to anyone observing political conduct today.
The idea of character in politics is hardly a new concern, of course, in this or any other century. But it was a recurrent issue in the post-Nixon and post-Watergate era, with more press, more media outlets, more competition for stories, more “-gates,” and every man or woman his or her own Woodward or Bernstein. And from the Clinton years to the Trump presidency, the issue has ratcheted up, with the invaluable assistance of cable television and social media. In addition to the “character flaw” and the “character issue” and the “character question,” there is the “character test,” which must be “passed” (or “failed”) by the aspiring candidate.
What exactly is a “character test”? Is it a defining moment, an ethical conundrum, a legal standard, a lifelong history, a crisis in publicity or in private life? Consider the following newspaper headlines, all of which appeared in The New York Times over the course of the last several decades:
“‘Heresy Hunt’ Charged: Character Test for Teachers Is Assailed by Liberties Group” (July 24, 1935)“Bridge an Aid in Life: National Guard Chaplain Sees Characters Tested in Game” (August 30, 1937)“Second ‘Character Test’ Will Be Made Today at Maryland–West Virginia Football Game” (November 24, 1951)“Character Tests May Delay Bingo: City Licensing Aide Cites Fingerprinting as a Factor” (November 29, 1958)“U.S. Court Upholds State Law Requiring a Bar Character Test” (February 18, 1969)“Coping with Celebrity, the Red Carpet Character Test” (September 27, 2007)Although none of these directly addresses the question of a “character test” for elected officials or candidates for high office, they are of interest, both individually and collectively, as illustrations of this modern-sounding term.
The National Guard chaplain at Camp Smith in Peekskill, New York, suggested at a regimental Sunday service in 1937 that playing bridge might be a good test of character. “There are such activities in life as bridge and dancing which strengthen our characters and improve our personalities,” he told the assembled troops. “Bridge, for example, helps a person to acquire unselfish habits.”
The football “character test” in 1951 was a literal one. The two competing teams were to be judged not only by the points they scored on the field, but also on eight different categories of “character”: “Respect for [the judges’] authority; will to compete (win or lose); bench conduct (coach, players); player conduct (on and off field); mental poise (under pressure); alertness (makes own breaks); perfection (coached in details); and physical fitness (as game ends).” As the headline notes, this was the second game at which this system had been tried. Two categories from the first, played the previous week between Swarthmore and Haverford Colleges, had been eliminated: “fan conduct (booing, rowdyism)” and “appearance (spic and span)” were replaced by “courage” and “enthusiasm.”
The “Heresy Hunt” headline of 1935 introduces a more ominous kind of character test, a loyalty oath asked of New York City teachers who sought probationary licenses. The requirement was opposed by a branch of the city’s Civil Liberties Committee, which said forthrightly, in 1935, that the test gave school officials “a power over the education of the youth of New York City of which Hitler himself might well be envious.” The 1969 “Bar Character Test” case, decided by a divided court, preserved requirements for “character and fitness” as standard for lawyers, over the objections of those who found these terms so “vague” as to be unconstitutional. And the “Bingo” article, also concerned with ethics and values, explains the issue in its first line: “The problem of how to certify ‘the good moral character’ of bingo operators under recently enacted legislation has posed difficulties that could delay the game’s legal start, scheduled here on Jan. 1.” As for 2007’s “Red Carpet Character Test,” it turns out to be a test of designers, not celebrities. How would they handle the presence of stars sitting in the audience? “Too much genuflecting or too obvious a focus on red carpet dressing and a designer loses credibility with the professionals, however good a show might be for the picture-hungry Internet.”
When a “character test” is applied in politics, rather than law or popular culture, the resonances of these other associations remain. Hard-to-define phrases like “character and fitness” and “good moral character,” combined with notions of sportsmanship, loyalty, and style, inflect both public and private judgment. Does the “moral character” of a politician matter if his or her practice produces, say, a strong economy? Or a passionate fan base? Is “character” an ascertainable value in politics? In amateur and professional sports? In that broad spectrum of activities we now group under the general heading of “celebrity”?
* * *
In the past, at least, a perceived failure in character could lead to the politician’s being disciplined or voted out of office. “Successful” character tests for politicians tend to be associated with bravery in fields other than politics, like the military. When “good” character is described, it often has to do with activities like charitable volunteering, church attendance, and devotion to parents and family. “Ethical” is heard less often as praise than is “unethical” as criticism.
Copyright © 2020 by Marjorie Garber