I want to write a post on the President’s recent words about Rob Reiner’s death.
That’s because they illustrate something important about character and about politics and even economics.
In case you aren’t aware of the situation, here is what happened:
Rob Reiner was a famous director in Hollywood, who directed movies like The Princess Bride and A Few Good Men, two of my favorites.
Rob was also politically active and critical of the President, a fact which I will return to shortly.
He and his wife Michelle Singer Reiner had been married for over thirty years and had three children.
Their middle child, Nick, has severe substance abuse problems, which began when he was 15.
Early in the 2000s, Nick made a concerted effort to overcome his substance abuse and even wrote a screenplay about his process.
This screenplay later became the basis for the movie Being Charlie, which his dad directed.
It seemed like the worst of his problems were over.
Tragically, Nick’s addiction battles resurfaced, and he had been living with his parents recently because of these troubles.
According to reports, he and his father had gotten into a big fight over the weekend at a party they attended together.
Apparently, Nick’s behavior was frightening party guests.
Tragically, Rob and his wife Michelle were found stabbed to death in their house the next morning.
My heart goes out to the Reiner family.
Their son Nick was taken into custody and is now considered the sole suspect in the murder.
This incident is horrific and tragic on so many levels.
Any time a human being loses their life, it is horrific.
This incident is also horrific because by all accounts, Rob and Michelle were loving and generous people .
They were active in their community and helped many people.
But this incident is especially terrible because of the role their son played in their murder.
Again, by all accounts, Rob and Michelle were loving parents who did all they could help their son.
That he was responsible for their death, and a brutal one at that, is every family’s, every human being’s, worse nightmare.
It is appropriate and right to mourn the loss of these people’s lives.
And it is right to feel deep compassion for the trauma this event has caused the Reiner family and the surrounding community.
That grief and compassion are the appropriate response makes the President’s response to Reiner’s death all the more shocking.
I don’t really want to post the President’s words, so I will link them here.
The basic gist of his comments was this:
“Rob Reiner died because he didn’t like me and his criticism of me made people mad.”
(The President’s comments were actually much worse than this, but this is the gist.)
To be clear, there is no other suspect in the Reiner’s death except their son Nick. And it appears that the murder resulted from Nick’s substance abuse problems, as well as mental health problems associated with schizophrenia.
Thus, the President’s claim that the Reiner died because he criticized the President is the worse kind of reckless fake news.
To their credit, several noted Republican’s immediately criticized the President’s comments on Reiner’s death.
Then the President doubled-down on his criticism.
You can see his response live in a video here.
I want to discuss the President’s response to this tragic situation, but first I want to tell you about a discussion I had with my ethics students this fall.
The discussion covered an article by Thomas hill, which I recommend and that you can read here.
The basic point of Hill’s article is that frequently we judge people’s character according to standards like this:
Does the person’s actions violate people’s rights?
Or, Does the person’s actions break the law?
Does the person’s actions bring about bad consequences?
Now, Hill acknowledges that all these questions can be helpful in judging whether someone’s behavior is right or wrong.
But he also thinks that sometimes an action is wrong for reasons that these questions don’t address.
He gives an example to make his point.
Imagine that some people are in the room watching the news on TV.
And imagine further that a news report comes on describing the horrible and tragic death of hundreds of people in a plane crash.
Now imagine further that one of the people in the room, upon hearing about the plane crash, bursts into uncontrollable hysterical laughter.
And to clarify, the person doesn’t have any kind of neurological disorder that impairs his understanding of appropriate social cues.
Rather, he laughs because he finds the death of hundreds of people on a plane crash amusing.
Thomas Hill asks, “What kind of person would do ‘X’?”
Thomas E. Hill is an emeritus philosopher at Chapel Hill.
All paintings in this post are by Shelly P. Johnson.
Also, please pardoned these framed photos of paintings–I am without my normal scanning capabilities.
In this case, the “X” stands for someone laughing hysterically at the deaths of hundreds of people on a plane crash.
Now we might think that Hill uses this question to shame the person in question.
For instance, it sounds like he is saying something like “What kind of horrible reprobate would do such a thing?”
But Hill uses the question “What kind of person would do ‘X’?” quite differently.
He uses it to help us consider, philosophically, the virtues a person would lack if he laughed at hundreds of people dying in a plane crash.
Virtues are strengths of character that help us use our emotions and reason together effectively in certain situations.
For instance, when we demonstrate the virtue of courage, we balance reason and emotions effectively to act well in fearful situations.
And when we demonstrate the virtue of courage, we balance reason and emotion effectively to act well in situations that call for giving of our resources to benefit people in need or otherwise.
Aristotle says this in Book II of Nicomachean Ethics.
(You can read more about virtue in this post about Aristotle who wrote a lot about this issue: How to Flourish by Cultivating Virtues.)
So, regarding the person who laughs at the plane crash, when we ask “What kind of person would do ‘X’?”, it helps us consider the virtues this person lacks.
And it seems like he lacks compassion for the people, and their families, whose lives were cut short.
It also seems like he lacks empathy.
After all, if he were in a similar circumstance and had suffered the loss of friends and family, he would likely feel horrified and even assaulted by someone who laughed at his loss.
Someone who laughs at such a time also demonstrates that they are ruled by their impulsive and immediate emotions rather than any higher principle.
This shows a lack of discipline.
Further, they prioritize their own emotional whims (i.e. the desire to laugh) over any other consideration such as the need to show compassion.
Such behavior demonstrates a lack of humility and self-discipline, as well as a lack of respect towards others.
Now, to be clear, all of us act poorly or unwisely sometimes, and it doesn’t necessarily mean our character is ruined.
For instance, most of us at one time or another have treated others with a lack of sensitivity or compassion.
Or, as another example, most of us have done things at one point that show a lack of empathy; humility; self-discipline; or respect.
Acting without certain virtues at times doesn’t mean we lack these virtues altogether.
Rather, it means that we haven’t fully embraced and habituated[1] these virtues, making them a stable part of our character.[2]
Since all of us make mistakes and act unwisely at times, consistent self-examination is essential if we want to develop good character.
So, one of the most important habits we can develop is taking stock of our character; examining areas where we lack virtue; and making a plan to cultivate that virtue.
Some very good virtues.
In addition, one of the most important things we can do to facilitate this process is apologize and make amends when we make bad choices demonstrating a lack of virtue.
Why does all this discussion of virtue matter?
Well, Hill points out that when people lack virtues in one area of life, it transfers into other areas of life.
For example, someone who demonstrates a lack of compassion, empathy, discipline, and humility by laughing at the deaths of hundreds in a plane crash will certainly demonstrate this poverty of virtue in other areas of life.
He will likely show a lack of compassion and empathy for friends and family members who suffer pain and loss.
And this can greatly diminish his relationships with other people.
We might not want to be friends with such a person because he is not trustworthy.
Once again, the point is that a consistent lack of virtue (vice) in one area of life often transfers to other areas of life.
This fact reminds me of a well-known saying about gossip:
If someone gossips to you about other people behind their backs, you can be sure that person will eventually gossip about you to other people behind your back.
That is because a consistent habit of gossip shows a lack of virtues like kindness, empathy, and self-control.
So, if someone consistently lacks these virtues with other people, they will eventually lack this virtue with you as well.
As another example, someone who consistently lies to other people in your presence will eventually lie to you, too.
This brings me back to the President’s recent words about the Reiner’s death.
In reference to his comments on Reiner’s death, we should ask ourselves, “What kind of person hears about a violent murder of parents by their son and uses the occasion to air personal grievances?”
When we ask this question, it helps us understand the kinds of virtues the president lacks.
It seems like he lacks compassion, empathy, humility, and respect.
Perhaps a second important question is this: “Does the President consistently lack these virtues in his overall character?”
As we have mentioned, everyone makes mistakes and acts unwisely sometimes.
So one bad act does mean a person’s entire character is bad.
But as we have also explored, a key habit that helps us overcome such imperfection is consistently examining ourselves for our shortcomings and apologizing when we act badly.
For instance, I remember when President Obama made unwise comments about the Special Olympics and former first Nancy Regan during his presidency.
These comments demonstrated a lack of virtue.
Wisely, President Obama publicly admitted his bad behavior in both instances, and he called Nancy Regan personally to apologize.
The two later became great friends, and Nancy Regan had lunch with Michelle Obama.
I am still practicing portraits, and none of the portraits in this post do their original justice. But practice makes perfect.
Such humility and responsibility strengthened Obama’s character.
On the other hand, throughout his political career, former President Clinton consistently demonstrated a lack of virtues such as self-discipline and respect for women.
He also persisted in this lack of virtue, refusing to take responsibility for it, which culminated in the Monica Lewinsky fiasco. (I appreciate the democratic leaders who were willing to call Clinton out on his immoral behavior.)
Similarly, President Trump regularly refuses to examine his personal shortcomings or apologize for any of his behavior, no matter how unvirtuous it is. (You can see an example of this in this video.)
Such consistent behavior indicates that the President has habituated a lack of the virtues under discussion–virtues like compassion, empathy, humility, and respect.
And the President himself seems to understand that he lacks virtues, which he has demonstrated in recent comments about the afterlife and his comments to widow Erika Kirk about hating his opponents.
All this matters to both you and me.
Remember that when we demonstrate a consistent lack of virtues in one area of life, this lack of virtue transfers into other areas of life.
So, if the President demonstrates a significant lack of compassion, empathy, humility, and respect in one area of his life, he will demonstrate it in other important areas of life that affect you and me and everyone else.
One recent example of the President’s lack of virtue is his fallout with Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Greene has been a staunch supporter of Trump[3] until recently when she criticized his handling of a variety of issues.
Trump then turned on Greene calling her a traitor, “stupid” and one of the worst congressmen in history.
Shortly after the President’s words, Greene began receiving pipe bomb threats against her son’s life, which she blamed on the President’s inflammatory rhetoric.
The President refused to take any responsibility for his reckless language or any of its possible consequences.
This is not the first time that someone who opposed the President received death threats.
When President Trump lost the election to Joe Biden in 2020, Trump pressured then vice-president Mike Pence not to certify the election.
Pence, who had been a staunch supporter of Trump, refused to block the transfer of presidential power to Joe Biden.
Trump then turned on Pence.
During the January 6 riot, Trump tweeted that Pence “didn’t have the courage to overturn the election results” and that “Pence had let them down”.
As rioters stormed the Capitol, they shouted that Pence was a traitor and that he should be hanged, setting out to hunt him down.
In fact, security personnel had to move Pence to a secure location to protect him from the rioters.
When an aid told Trump about Pence’s danger, Trump replied, “So what?”
Such events demonstrate that the President’s recent comments about the Reiner’s death do not reflect a momentary lapse in judgement.
Rather, they demonstrate that a lack of compassion, empathy, humility, and respect is a consistent part of the President’s character.
Two other examples of this is his recent use of the r-word as an insult and his reference to people from Somalia as “garbage”.
The lack of these virtues certainly explains a few of the President’s other recent actions.
For instance, the President builds new ballrooms while withholding SNAP benefits and letting healthcare subsidies lapse, actions which often mean that children, through no fault of their own, do not have enough to eat and lack proper health care.
And the President also called affordability concerns from everyday people a “democratic hoax”, when such affordability concerns mean that people struggle to pay rent and provide enough food for their family.
Now, this post has largely been about President Trump’s character deficits, which he seems to know he has.
But it demonstrates some important truths about politics and leaders in general.
And the point is this:
Character matters greatly in a leader.
We often elect Presidents simply because we think they will help the economy go well.
And certainly a strong economy is important because we all need to have a job, and we need to eat and pay rent.
But character is actually deeply tied to economic concerns.
That’s because at the the core of our economic concerns is a deep desire for people to care for our material well-being and the well-being of our loved ones.
Shelly. I was sorry to learn all this about our leader but I am impressed once again by how well you write and how you so clearly point out the needed details to gain an accurate picture of a situation which is seldom presented by the news media. Way to go, Shelly
Aunt Lorraine, this is so kind of you to say! I really appreciate it.