Today I’m honored to have Current, an online magazine edited by several Christian historians, publish my review of Marvin Olasky’s newest book, Moral Vision: Leadership from George Washington to Joe Biden.1 Though his update of a book originally published during the scandal-ridden second half of the Clinton presidency includes new profiles and pays more attention to race and gender, the former editor of World magazine continues to make the case that “moral vision” matters more in assessing candidates for high office than party affiliation or even policy priorities.
If you read my recent post on the dangers of another Trump presidency, you won’t be surprised that I’m generally sympathetic to Olasky’s argument. Though I ended up being skeptical that he could convince those who don’t already recognize the Trumpian version of the problem, it’s clear to me that single-issue voting and partisan tribalism can hand enormous power to people ill-suited to use it well. Among other constitutional and institutional restraints on the abuse of power, I think Olasky is right that American voters should demand some moral fiber in their leaders.
But how can they assess character? Olasky suggests they look for certain “tells,” behaviors that point to deeper virtues or vices — e.g., marital infidelity, which points to larger patterns of dishonesty and is often tied up with abuse of power, and a demonstrated ability to exercise self-discipline when presented with temptations.
Then Olasky also makes much of faith, naming it alongside character and experience as the components shaping a leader’s “moral vision.”
This struck me as being a bit more problematic, though in complicated ways that I didn’t have time to develop in my review. So I thought I’d talk through those reservations as my Substack post this week for paid subscribers.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The Pietist Schoolman to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.