The honorable politician

 

Here is a confusing and disorganized statement of principles: How should politicians and office holders behave? Well, of course, they should behave honorably, which Shakespeare made clear is not what we saw in Caesar's assassins, in spite of their talking about honor almost nonstop. Honor would, it seems, exclude assassination. Really? Was Caesar a danger to the Roman state because he was "ambitious?" Well, yes he was, but his ambition was to stop the centuries-old power of an ingrained aristocracy called the Senate. His plan was to extract its teeth, and that is the real reason they did him in. The Roman constitution, having evolved via compromises for centuries, was way out of line with the fact of Empire, and would soon have fallen had Augustus not come along. While there were things he did that make me wince, he at least set affairs in pretty good order. One good quality they never have is humility. They thrust themselves into public places. There is no need for it nowadays, with TV and the Internet and so on. Also, should the politician be cautious or brave (which usually goes with stupid)? The handshaking and so on is just to get on TV anyway, and these things, while traditional, have no effect, except maybe on the person who gets their hand shaken, which can never add up to winning an election. It is a waste of the politician's energy and hard on their hands (unless they give sloppy, weak, handshakes that are understandable but not impressive). People important to a society are too important to put themselves at risk. I think the honestly conducted press conference or just a policy statement delivered on TV (or whatever should become its equivalent in future) is better than shaking hand and patting backs and kissing babies. By the way, a comment on journalist ethics, something that we often see ignored in the pursuit of fame. Questions at a press conference should be real questions, not traps or just statements of the opponent's position. Otherwise, the politician should be direct and put the journalist down in public with a response to the effect that you are looking for real questions. A more important aspect of honorable behavior, though is lack of corruption, which goes way, way beyond accepting valuable bribes and favors. It includes not exchanging political favors, not voting pork. One of the most corrupt persons I can think of was a long term Senator from West Virginia who seemed to live for this. I don't mention his name out of respect for the dead. As things go today, then, it is obvious the U.S, is beset with corruption, and the consequences can be seen with bridges that go nowhere, military forts that aren't needed, and all kinds of wasted money. You would think the politician would have the honor and decency to not boast about these things and how they "bring home the bacon." Alongside honor that the Romans were so hypocritical about, there is another thing we can call dignity. Humor is desirable, but needs careful vetting. Details like posture and grooming and speaking and so on are important in leadership. More important though is the use of insults and other propaganda techniques to get elected, like patriotic music in the political commercial, or a flag, or testimonials, or patriotic symbols, or much ado about family and heritage, or anything else inclined to appeal to emotion rather than reason. You would think the politician is selling soft drinks loaded with sugar. The opponent needs to be criticized for what bad things they have done, and mistakes they have made, and it needs to be the truth (the whole truth), but the person of the opponent should be out of bounds. This is of course the biggest problem with democracy: people are influenced by this behavior. We wouldn't see negative political advertisements if they didn't work, even though people profess to not like them. Even if people don't believe the ad, it plants doubts. No wonder election turnout is the States is so low.

Here’s a clearer, more organized version of your statement, keeping your ideas intact but structuring them so the points flow logically and the key arguments stand out:

---

Principles for Politicians and Office Holders

Politicians and office holders should behave with honor, which implies integrity and avoidance of corruption. Shakespeare illustrated in Julius Caesar how talk of honor can mask self-interest: Caesar’s assassins claimed to act out of honor, yet their real motive was preserving the entrenched power of the Roman Senate. Caesar himself, though ambitious, sought to curtail an aristocratic system that had become incompatible with the realities of Empire. While some of his actions are questionable, he ultimately brought order to Rome. This demonstrates that true honor in politics is grounded in service and sound governance, not rhetoric.

Humility is another rare but valuable quality. Modern politicians often seek the spotlight unnecessarily through handshakes, public appearances, and photo opportunities. While traditional, these gestures rarely influence substantive outcomes and instead waste energy and expose leaders to risk. A well-conducted press conference or direct policy statement, delivered clearly via modern media, is far more effective than symbolic public rituals.

Ethics in interaction with the press are equally important. Journalists should ask genuine questions, not attempt to trap politicians or advance opponents’ positions. Politicians should respond directly and firmly to such manipulations, emphasizing honesty and clarity.

A core element of honor is lack of corruption. Corruption is not limited to accepting bribes; it also includes exchanging political favors, passing unnecessary legislation for personal or regional gain, and other forms of self-interest at public expense. The consequences of corruption are tangible: wasted money, unnecessary projects, and weakened public trust. Politicians with true honor would resist boasting about such actions.

Alongside honor, dignity is essential. Leaders should maintain proper posture, grooming, speech, and conduct, understanding the subtle influence of personal presentation. Humor is acceptable but must be carefully considered. Importantly, politicians should avoid using manipulative propaganda—such as emotional appeals, symbols, or patriotic imagery—to sway voters. Criticism should focus on actions and decisions, not the personal character of opponents.

Finally, democracy itself is vulnerable to these influences. Negative advertising and emotionally charged campaigns succeed precisely because they work, even when voters claim to dislike them. This contributes to voter cynicism and low turnout. True leadership, therefore, combines honor, dignity, ethical communication, and resistance to manipulative tactics, prioritizing the public good over personal or partisan gain.

---

If you like, I can also condense this into a pithy “code of conduct” for politicians” that reads like a modern manifesto, keeping it punchy and memorable. That might make it even more impactful. Do you want me to do that?

That was an old post I couldn't figure out how to fix: thanks for that, although I see you left out some of the specific forms of public pandering (kissing the flag, talking family, patriotic music, insulting opponents and dealing with local special interest.

You’re right — I treated that part too lightly when I compressed your statement. Let me fold those details back in.

You were pointing to what might be called symbolic or emotional pandering in political communication. This includes using flags, patriotic music, or similar imagery in advertising; emphasizing family, heritage, or local identity as rhetorical devices; insulting opponents personally rather than criticizing their policy actions; and catering to narrow local or special-interest groups in ways that distort broader public responsibility.

Your earlier references to honor were illustrated partly through contrast with the behavior of the assassins in Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, and the political dynamics surrounding Julius Caesar. The point you were making fits a long tradition of ethical political theory: that leadership legitimacy comes from conduct, restraint in self-promotion, and focus on public welfare rather than emotional manipulation.

If I were to express your complete position a bit more cleanly, it would be that honorable political behavior avoids both material corruption and symbolic manipulation, keeping communication centered on verifiable actions, policy substance, and respectful treatment of opponents.

If you want, I can also help you shape this into a tighter “philosophy of democratic leadership” statement that keeps all your concerns but reads like something ready for publication.