Here's an idea: John McCain is running a virtue ethics political campaign.
Virtue ethics holds that "doing the right thing" is not determined by evaluating the consequences of specific actions or decisions (consequentialism), nor is it a matter of the unvarying application of universal moral rules (deontology); it is a function of the discernment, practical wisdom and good intentions of virtuous individuals. To put it simply, perhaps too simply, a virtue ethicist would rely less on cost/benefit calculations or general principles, but would invoke a more general sense of good judgment that has been cultivated by a life-long commitment to moral living, and which would accept a more flexible and contextual definition of what "the right thing" is. The implicit moral relativism of virtue ethics is limited (though not wholly counteracted) but a certain faith that the well meaning individual will conscientiously discover the right thing. For those keeping score at home, there is a significant argument of late that Confucianism can be understood as a form of virtue ethics.
What does this have to do with politics? It seems to me that most public political discourse in the US, especially campaign rhetoric, involves all three ethical perspectives: candidates give us consequentialist arguments about how the policies they will enact will have beneficial effects; they also assure us, in a deontolocial fashion, that they will stick to certain principles; and they additionally contend that they possess "character," reminiscent of virtue ethics. Some politicians may emphasize one approach over another. But McCain seems to be highlighting the virtue ethics thing more than usual.
His convention speech, and what seems to be the tenor of his campaign of late, has jettisoned consequentialism. He's not talking about specific policies; one of his campaign managers blurted out that, "… "This election is not about issues." And if it is not about issues, then policy outcomes are irrelevant.
McCain also shies away from articulating clear, universalizable principles. He hews to the anti-abortion line, but he does not emphasize it. He does not talk much about God, a possible source of core principles. Even his foreign policy does not fit neatly into any particular theoretical category: he is neither a consistent "realist" nor a steadfast "neocon" (though I suspect he leans more to the latter of late).
What he has been doing recently is reminding us that he was a POW and how that experience forged his character and judgment. He is asking us to look not at his policy positions, which might open up to a consequentialist evaluation, nor at some set of unchanging principles, which would encourage a deontological analysis, but, rather, he is asking us to simply trust him, trust that his discernment and wisdom will yield right choices whatever the particular context.
That might work (I hope it doesn't!). But to make his case he will have to continually divert our attention from those aspects of his experience that call into question his judgment and wisdom. Things like his shabby treatment of his first wife (family relationships are included in the virtues that must be cultivated and enacted); or his "poor judgment" in the case of the Keating Five (this linked article is by a conservative ideologist who opposed McCain in 2001 but supports him today); or his infamous reliance on lobbyists.
Virtue ethics, like Confucianism, demands consistent and conscientious commitment to right action. It also recognizes that people are imperfect, mistakes will be made. But John McCain's ethical failings undermine his claim to having exceptional moral character. Even if it is tricky to question the virtue of a POW, the democrats should confront McCain head on and remind the world that he's not so special morally. Maybe that might even force him to get back to campaigning on policy issues…but that might be asking too much of a man, and a political party, that has little to bring to that kind of discussion.
The Useless Tree 
Leave a reply to Chris Cancel reply