COLUMN: Voting public should expect higher moral standards from its president

---

by Allen Lewis

---

Poll after poll shows that voters, by large margins, believe Bob Dole's character is greater than the presi-dent's, yet many of the same respondents say they plan to vote for the man with less integrity.

Did I miss something? Leaders must be held to a higher standard of excellence, not only in their performance but in their principles. This holds true not only in government, but in all facets of society.

The Democrats would have us believe that character is not of paramount importance. Some people go so far as to say they believe the president is doing a good job, so they don't care what kind of example he sets in his personal life.

This attitude is dangerous for a nation. The minute people start accepting leaders of questionable character, we immediately lower the expectations for everyone in our society.

I was watching ESPN Sports-center the other night, and heard a Dallas Cowboys player say this: "So the president can smoke a reefer, but the Dallas Cowboys can't?" Huh? What is happening to our standards, folks? Are we now reduced to justifying the use of illicit and dangerous drugs on the grounds that the president once used pot?

People look up to the president for so much more than just economic and social issues. Just as professional athletes are considered role models, the president is the ethical standard-bearer for the country.

Whether you realize it or not, the bar used for judging our leaders and ourselves has been lowered. The American people have come to expect little integrity from the president on both professional and personal levels. Chalk this one up to human nature and a brilliant calculation by the Democrats.

For 12 years the Democrats tried to debate the Republican Party on the issues. The left could not and cannot win on the issues alone. It took the nomination of Bill Clinton, a brilliant campaigner and an "average guy" with whom people all over the country feel they can sit down on Sunday and watch a football game. He feels our pain. He's made bad decisions like everybody else, but has realized the errors of his ways. Right?

Now, presented with a choice between the president, who has a history of questionable ethical decisions and broken promises, and a challenger whom the majority admits has a great deal more principle, America seems to be choosing the candidate of lesser quality. It's simple: The American people are afraid they can't live up to Bob Dole's vision of the nation.

The former senator has set high standards for himself in the area of character, and expects reciprocity from the American people.

Dole has distinguished himself as an American war hero, a pillar of virtue and a wise legislator who knows when to stand up for his beliefs and when to compromise for the good of the nation.

On the other hand, by re-electing Clinton, the voters choose a man from which little in the way of ethics can ever be expected; there really is no standard.

This is similar to a student taking an introductory class to fulfill graduation requirements rather than choosing that interesting, yet difficult, class, or the football team choosing to play some hapless Division II opponent rather than the monumental challenge of Ohio State. The Texas A&M football coach will tell you that a team plays down to the level of its opponent.

Similarly, people presented with low standards set low goals and often do just enough to get by, as anyone who has taken HUMA pass/fail knows.

Meanwhile, the voters will keep complaining about the character of their politicians and the degradation of morals in our society.

America did not become the great nation it is by setting low standards for its leaders. Sure, we may not all be able to live up to Bob Dole's standards. I don't know if I can. But the nation cannot and will not improve itself unless the bar is raised and we have something to strive for.

Allen Lewis is a vice president of the Rice Republicans and a Lovett College senior.

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the September 20, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.