Skip to main content

What Hamilton and Julius Caesar Teach Us About Third Parties

In ninth grade, I had to write a paper about Shakespeare’s play Julius Caeser. In it, I had to analyze the character of Brutus—the friend of Caesar who agrees that the leader’s ambition is faulty to the nation. With regret almost from the outset, he helps in the brutal assassination of his former friend. In one of the most memorable lines, the dying Ceasar cries out in shock.

“Et tu, Brute?” Meaning, of course, “You too, Brutus?”

The betrayal of Caesar, while perhaps nobly inspired, does not bring rewards for the tormented Brutus. Instead, he watches the system crumble before his eyes as the eloquent Marc Antony masterfully convinces the crowd that the murderers must be held accountable. In the end, the balance of power leads Caesar’s adopted son Octavius to become the new leader. And Brutus?

Well, let’s just say he kills himself in the end.

So, what was the theory of my paper? Ends don’t always justify the means. In fact, they may be destroyed by them. That is to say, moral goals or objectives cannot be achieved through corrupt or immoral means. Let me make it clearer.

The musical, Alexander Hamilton, has some similar themes. Through hip-hop music and quick-witted speeches, we get to watch as the ambitious Aaron Burr, whose only wish is to make a difference, gives up principle for the sake of power again and again. Eventually, his allies desert him. Alexander Hamilton not only refuses to endorse Burr in the Presidential Election, but actually sides with his old, political opponent Thomas Jefferson. As Hamilton states near the end of the play:

“We have fought on like seventy-five different fronts. But when all is said and done, Jefferson has beliefs. Burr has none.”

What are these embellished versions of history trying to tell us?

Sacrificing principle for the sake of power never leads to good ends. The abandonment of integrity in calculations of political gain always lead to self-damnation and ruin.

If only the GOP had learned this lesson before the election year. The fact is, after the repeated demonstrations of Donald Trump’s disgusting behavior and revealingly intolerant rhetoric there is no possible way in which he can be defended without first abandoning principle.

Supporters of Trump have only one very weak defense, and interestingly, it is the exact statement that I had to discredit in my ninth grade paper. They are convinced that the “end” of keeping Hillary Clinton from the White House justifies the “mean” of supporting an immoral, abusive, bigot as the standard-bearer of the party’s more morally intentioned policies.

But hypocrisy never survives in the game of power and principle. Because the moment one abandons the latter, they become a victim to the former. And there is no principle left to defend them. Machiavelli could tell you that.

Radio hosts, politicians, regular citizens, or anyone who still maintains that the republican nominee is still somehow morally superior to his democratic [and sometimes republican] opponents are deceiving themselves. Why?

Because it doesn’t really matter whether or not the democrats are worse. It didn’t matter if Caeser really was “too ambitious.” In the latter case, murder was still wrong. In the former, so is Donald Trump. The gamble to maintain the noble objectives of the Republican Party through an immoral standard-bearer will lead to the downfall of the entire movement. They will have no legs to stand on when the political smoke clears and people remember that power is fleeting and all victories short-lived.

Instead, history will record—independent of the outcome—that some citizens sacrificed power to save their conscience while others sold their soul on the off-chance that one evil would secure a better good in the long run. But choosing evil of any degree will never salvage goodness from the soul. There is no “long run” when character is on the line. They will be left to their own ruin and condemnation.

There can be no “higher principle” when the pursuit of it is full of corruption. We cannot think that to deny Clinton the White House will somehow redeem us from supporting someone who encourages xenophobia, racism, and blatant sexual harassment.

What I am saying is vote for principle. Because you are casting the ballot of your character. The chance to define the integrity of your soul. It might not mean one of the two main candidates on the ballot.

One day, we will rise up in the aftermath of perhaps the most unpopular and disastrous election, and the only people who will have the moral authority to lead movements for change will be those who refused to sacrifice character in the current, dirty power struggle. Let’s commit to be the future of the American soul. We do not need to vote for power. We need to vote for principle.


That will never be a waste. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Response to The Church of Jesus Christ's Policy on Same-Sex Couples and Children

The young man and his girlfriend had lived together for 8 years. They’d had a daughter together. Both their paychecks went towards sustaining their small home. And they wanted to be baptized. Normally, it would seem rational to tell them to stop living together so they could get baptized. But this was a family. And that’s not how things worked. While separation still an acceptable solution, we were instead encouraged to have them get married before baptism. Why? Because a temporary separation just for the benefits of baptism was no security that they wouldn’t end up living together again—this time breaking sacred covenants. It was strongly urged, then, that they wait for marriage before getting baptized. The waiting process in Brazil is long. And sometimes, one couple or the other also has to  go through a complicated legal process of divorce from a previous partner. But, we tell them, it’s better to wait. The church has never been interested in a numerical manifestation of c...

Integrity: the missing ingredient

There was one good thing about Gingrich's response to the opening question of the GOP debate in South Carolina. In his attempt to avoid the question, he provided the answer to it. It's simple really. He has absolutely no understanding of integrity. Or why it matters. Let’s try to clear it up for him. In a recent class I took at BYU, our professor pointed to studies on the relationship between the treatment of women and  the level of corruption within governments and societies. It was a fascinating study. And while the subject may be freely and continually researched, the point here is to lay the groundwork for the casual story. Ultimately, the degradation of the family unit, specifically in the treatment of women,  leads to degradation in our governing institutions. How? Because families are unique in their ability to instill certain values within us, even at an early age. Those who dishonor marital vows ( like through adultery, pornography, ect…) demonstrate a lack of se...

Make America Fake Again

If Hillary got indicted by that right-wing FBI And good ole Bernie’s heart had him lying down to die If all the other candidates were thrown into a ring, And killed each other off with straw-man weaponry If that thing called ‘foreign policy’ was really just a game And experience was more about reality tv show fame If Muslims were all evil and the refugees a scam Or the terrorist threats a joke and the Arab Spring a sham If Americans were morons, duped on marijuana dreams Or Mexicans were rapists, building our walls to stop their schemes If the poor could be delivered by a real estate tycoon And illegals could be rounded up, like animals two by two If truth were merely relative and anything could fly And insults were called speeches—substantive, not denied If the moral compass of the land were broken right in two And intellectuals deported for revealing what is true If the world became a fantasy shrouded in lies and sin,...