“The first is absolution — not only for Platner, but for every nominee or candidate, Republican or Democratic, with a blemished personal history — on the grounds that we elect or install people in high office to achieve the results we desire, not to serve as paragons of moral rectitude. If nothing else, this could make our politics less repellent to talented if imperfect people who now steer clear of public service because they don’t want to put themselves or their families through the inevitable media inquisition that comes with every campaign.

“The second is consistent judgment of anyone, Democrat or Republican, who falls far short of clear and unyielding standards of moral conduct. Perhaps this will finally re-erect the political barriers that formerly prevented shameless people, our current president not least, from degrading our politics and setting a putrescent example of what is — and what isn’t — necessary to reach the high places of American life.

“What ought to stop is what we have now: inconsistent standards selectively applied according to our political bias.”

What a nauseating, unethical, cynical position. I decided that Bret Stephens didn’t deserve serious attention (or respect as a conservative) back when he advocated the elimination of the Second Amendment, but this is worse. His op-ed is also deliberately dishonest: critics of those (like me ) who impose ethical analysis on public figures frame such judgments as “moralizing,” because that can be (wrongly) attacked with Biblical cliches, like “Judge not, lest ye not be judged,” and “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” I placed both of these out-of-context admonitions in the Ethics Alarms rationalization list.

The issue isn’t moral conduct, but ethical conduct, principles and values. The public will not and cannot “get the results they desire” if the leaders they elect cannot be trusted. That is the question, and the one aspect of a candidate’s character that must be present. There is literally nothing about Platner, his past, his career, his personal life, and his statements that suggests anything other than he is completely untrustworthy as well as having no qualifications to be in Congress other than having two arms, two legs and a head.

Moreover, Stephens’ ignorance of society, leadership, role models and how society evolves is horrifying and unconscionable. “The fish rots from the head down” isn’t a nursery rhyme, it is true, and has been proven true of governments and societies throughout history. The United States of American has survived this long because the Founders understood that leaders had to be, or at least appear to be, of exemplary character. George Washington was the template. Unethical leaders create unethical societies. This was one of my main (heh: I typed “Maine” first) arguments against the Republican Party nominating Donald Trump in 2016, with posts like “A Nation Of Assholes: The Ultimate, Undeniable And Crucial Reason Donald Trump Must Never Be President.” The U.S. was spectacularly lucky with Trump, but there were always aspects of his career and character that suggested that he wouldn’t be completely incompetent as President. Platner has absolutely none. He makes Donald Trump seem like George Washington by comparison.

Stephens’ second “good” is even less good, if that’s possible. So the Democrats’ cynical embrace of a walking, talking piece of human excrement because packing the Supreme Court and knee-capping democracy is their object of lust should make it more difficult to elect people like Donald Trump in the future? Stephens reveals himself to be a Presidential history ignoramus.

We have had plenty of Presidents who could be called “shameless,” prime among them one of the men whose face is on Mount Rushmore, Thomas Jefferson. Andrew Jackson killed people who insulted him. He was also an unapologetic racist regarding Native Americans. Grover Cleveland paid someone to take his place in the Union army, fathered a child out of wedlock, and probably did so by raping that child’s mother. I might vote for Graham Platner over Woodrow Wilson if that nightmare choice was ever necessary. FDR may have been the most ruthless, conniving, Machiavellian POTUS of all. Richard Nixon committed treason. Barack Obama used his special status as the first black President to wreck U.S. race relations, which I regard as a lot worse than Donald Trump plastering his face and name all over the place and authoring tweets that read like they were written by a 10-year-old. If nothing else, Joe Biden is shameless.

There were valid, justifiable reasons to elect Donald Trump, and the fact that the party he opposes is trying to put a man like Graham Platner in the U.S. Senate was one of them.

At least Stephens’ last statement above is true: “What ought to stop is what we have now: inconsistent standards selectively applied according to our political bias.” This blog has only been maintaining that since its inception, because it should be obvious to anyone. We don’t need to risk having a creep like Platner in the Senate to learn that lesson.

Notice: With this post, I am officially designating the Graham Platner candidacy an ethics train wreck.