I ask you: who DOESN’T admire good character?
But let’s nuance, OK? For some reason my mind flips to military leaders of yore like George Patton in WW II. Who was anything but sweet, but face it, an effective and valuable general. By contrast, you can get nice but weak ones who create too many losses because they lack the right impulses, along with sheer martial verve and preparation.
I know quite a bit about France’s Chief of Staff in WW I, Joseph Joffre. This guy bamboozled the public, who called him a reassuring “Papa Joffre,” and even certain Brit generals who endorsed his strategies, creating many thousands of needless deaths. While Joffre’s reputation remained quite unsullied!
During the war this aged general stayed near Paris, ate well, and went to bed on time, avoiding the front. Yet he kept urging his troops to show their moxie and go over the top in one offensive after another, and against dug-in German lines. Almost completely fruitless, these offensives killed off a generation of young men for basically zilch; but even in his postwar memoirs Joffre wouldn’t cop to any of that. Could he not have seen that when you keep attacking into the teeth of lethal machine guns, you’re only going to produce a heap of casualties?
Give me Patton or Montgomery any time, and the contrastive list goes on and on. (Though Joffre DID seem fine personality-wise.)
By contrast, I know many don’t admire the persona certain types in power radiate today, and what they seem to be character-wise. That of course includes Mr. Trump. OK, maybe you wouldn’t be his friend, I get that; but let’s see if some of his policies work. Like trimming (at least a bit) super-bloated D.C. bureaucracies. Or reducing Iran’s enrichment via oil revenues that’s enriched in another ghastly sense, too! Plus funded terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, along with the Houthis, who’ve become a menace to international shipping.
So those valuing policy changes versus just character might want to argue. To be frank, we’ve been far too “flip” in our estimates of some in office who affect a lot of people with their moves. (Think of well-known “analysts” like Whoopi or Fallon in this frivolous regard.)
Something similar might be said re teachers, too. Those who are superficially a bit offbeat are often the most enjoyable and cogent.
You all know people who seem to have it all “down” in private life, including the right vehicle, home, clothes, etc. Plus the right character, it feels? But on the other hand, I like a line that roughly comes back to me from a book, i.e., that “the quality people are often knee-deep in … garbage!”
They may not look the part or feel “down the middle,” and yes, Patton slapped the odd soldier, and exhibited prejudice, and you can add plenty of others to the list of quirky types who, however, deliver. All that of course not making the character issue negligible. Easy to deplore those who are inveterately late for meetings, or who cheat regularly at different games, and so forth.
Speaking of games, let me zero in on the sports world for more examples and analogies. Take a baseball manager like Dick Williams, whose autobiography was appropriately titled “No More Mr. Nice Guy.”
This gent wouldn’t win any personality contests, but what a skipper he was! The Boston Red Sox (and media there) were at first derisive about his fussy ways when he took over in 1967; that is, till he overcame 100 to 1 odds and helped bring them a pennant. Moving to Oakland, Williams nettled demanding stars like Reggie Jackson. But what Williams did worked for the A’s, too, via a skein of championships in the early ‘70s. When owner Charlie Finley eased him out, Jackson cried and felt guilty that he and others on the club hadn’t seen Williams’ worth from the get-go.
Then there’s Vince Lombardi, etc., etc. Versus the “nicer” types who often mire their teams farther down in their divisions. Besides the military or sporting realms, there are others we could cite here, too.
So which do you choose: character or good results? Naturally it’s best when you get both!