Holier Than Thou

As a presidential candidate debate watcher and then as a brief follow-up political analysis watcher (I can endure only so much) I have been disgusted by the negative, close-minded and prejudicial attitude of numerous commentators—and some candidates—who seem to glory in ‘drawing blood’ from those who would be public servants for our country.

Interestingly, it is frequently the candidate who distances himself/herself most markedly from the pack by taking a strong moral stance who becomes the target for the critics. It seems that if a candidate is ‘too good’ that he/she is set up for the ‘slings and arrows’ of those who would want to see them brought down. It seems especially galling if the candidate appears to be what the critic labels ‘holier than thou.’ They can then dismiss the candidate as being unqualified simply by virtue of the label they affix. I guess, by their twisted logic, they feel that to be ‘holy’ is worse than being ‘base.’ They imply that you can’t take such a candidate seriously; they are not ‘one of us.’

True.

The way I view this is that a really good person is a reproach to the critic who himself probably has behaviors or tendencies that he tries to impute to others. In school it was the kids who were often in trouble or who were low-achievers who labeled the higher achievers as ‘goody-two-shoes.’ Jesus identified such persons as liars and hypocrites, whited sepulchers.

My wife pointed out that it seems to be the same type of behavior exhibited by lobsters that are thrown into a pot of water; the ones who have the skill or dexterity to start to climb out of the hot water are dragged back down in by the others below them.

As for me, I welcome being in the company of one ‘holier than me,’ or more skilled, or more erudite, or more charitable, or any number of virtues. These are the people, the noble and great ones, who inspire me to want to do better.

I’ll vote for this kind of candidate.