GAUGING CHARACTER VALUES : REVISING TERMS OF DEBATE.

Byline: Russ Gough

IN his literary masterpiece, ``The Republic,'' the ancient Greek philosopher Plato recounts a myth about a Lydian shepherd who finds a magical gold ring which has the power to render its wearer invisible. After realizing fully the ring's power of invisibility, Plato tells us, the shepherd schemed to become one of the king's liaisons, committed adultery with the king's wife, and, with her help, murdered the king and took over the Lydian kingdom.

Plato uses the myth to raise a number of provocative questions about human nature, including the following one about character: If people, especially those in possession of a magical, invisibility ring - read: those in positions of political power - could do whatever they wanted, without any consequence of being seen by others, what would they do? That is, how would they act ``by nature,'' as a matter of habit? Would they be altruistic, fair, honest, loyal, responsible and self-controlled, or just the opposite?

These questions not only represent the basic issues of character that justifiably and necessarily should be pressed against Bill Clinton and Bob Dole as presidential candidates but help illustrate the deeply inextricable relationship between personal character and political leadership.

Indeed, time was in this country when saying that character shouldn't be an issue in the race for the presidency, much less for any political office, would have struck virtually any American voter as amusingly bizarre at best and dangerously false at worst.

``How in the world could a candidate's character be anything but a central issue?'' would have been a typical, incredulous response.

Despite what political pundits and pollsters are suggesting to the contrary, present-day Americans by and large would offer the same sort of response. That voters may seem confused about the role of character or that they seem to believe that ``character'' doesn't matter is a ruse, brought on by 50 years of a watered-down concept by pop psychology in which ``character'' has become a mere synonym for ``personality.'' The self-serving, politically motivated moralism of win-at-all-costs attack ads further dilute the issue of character.

But voters believe in the importance of the age-old concept of character.

From at least the time of Plato until roughly the midpart of this century, character was typically understood in the ethical sense of one's personal bundle of good habits (virtues) and not-so-good habits (vices). By ``habits'' was meant those ingrained dispositions to act in one way rather than another, those specific ways in which one would act characteristically: honestly or dishonestly, responsibly or irresponsibly, and so forth.

Plato's ethics-minded student Aristotle captured the essence of character as habit when he remarked succinctly, ``We are what we repeatedly do.''

While people do have the capacity to act contrary to their habits, the sobering reality to keep in mind, especially at election time, is that most of the time we and our elected officials will in fact act consistent with our habits.

This is precisely why, for example, when Dole accuses Clinton of having ``a habit of half-truths'' or when Clinton's side charges that Dole has a consistent pattern of pandering to special interests, the issues of personal character and presidential leadership are simply inseparable.

To the extent such accusations are true, voters have compelling reasons to be concerned: Clinton and Dole essentially are what they have repeatedly done in the past - good and bad.

And all things being equal, we would be deceiving ourselves if we expected a candidate to act contrary to his or her well-ingrained habits of character after taking office.

Thus the crucial question will be: How will a given candidate's habits of character affect his or her ability to lead this country responsibly, fairly, unselfishly and competently?

President Clinton is, of course, the candidate for whom character has become an unprecedented signature issue, and the fact that Clinton was elected in 1992 and appears poised to win in this election is often cited by political pundits as evidence that for a majority of Americans character is not an important issue at election time.

But we should not be too quick to reach this conclusion. Many Americans are no doubt fed up with limiting presidential character to marital fidelity and marijuana inhalation. Yet using Clinton's election triumphs as evidence of voters' apathy toward character is, to say the least, suspect.

Why? In 1992, the president received only 43 percent of the votes cast; and because only 55 percent of those registered to vote actually did so, it means that he received the support of fewer than 25 percent of all eligible voters.

Such a strikingly and embarrassingly low percentage of support hardly constitutes a nationwide consensus disavowing the importance of personal character in a presidential campaign. Quite the contrary, multitudes of apathetic voters are simply and emphatically disavowing the character of our run-of-the-mill politicians.

Thus it was remarkable, to the point of being laughable, during last Wednesday evening's debate how Dole and Clinton responded to a question about the millions of Americans alienated by the political process. Dole offered an evasive nonanswer by saying ``I don't know of any perfect solution,'' followed by ``I wonder if it's our fault, the candidates' fault.'' Clinton spoke passionately of the need to make voting and the election process ``more accessible,'' especially because ``a lot of people are busy, and it's hard for them to just get there and vote.''

The response of those among the millions of alienated voters who may have watched the debate was undoubtedly swift and poignant: ``They wonder if it's their fault? They think that making it easier for me to get to a polling station and fill out a ballot will give me more respect for the political process? They just don't get it.''

What they don't get - and what most Americans continue to understand - is that our political process ultimately will only be as good as the character of our political leaders. What they don't get is that one half or more of all registered voters will not show up to the polls on Nov. 5 precisely because of what they perceive as an abysmal lack of personal character among their political leaders.

And what they don't get is that many of us who do vote on that day of privilege and responsibility will do so despite harboring the very same distrust and disaffection.

MEMO: Russ Gough is an associate professor of philosophy and ethics at Pepperdine University and is the author of ``Character is Everything: Promoting Ethical Excellence in Sports'' (Harcourt Brace, 1996). His e-mail address is rgoughpepperdine.edu.

CAPTION(S):

2 Photos

Photo: (1--color) Controversies surrounding Bill Clinton before and after his election as president are subjects that should be weighed in public debate.

(2--color) Bob Dole should be considered the sum of his past and current actions, including his relationships with special-interest groups.

Associated Press