As our former president negotiates his way through a fourth set of indictments it seems pertinent to talk about why it hasn’t had much of an effect on his base. In point of fact, he is still the odds on favorite to win the Republican nomination. The concept might seem foreign to most of us, but I have a working theory. Simply put, most of us think small. I could get into advanced psychology here, but suffice it to say this gets into moral and ethical development. Essentially, most observers see moral development in three stages. The early childhood stage has people simply meeting their needs and ignoring moral norms. In early childhood we wouldn’t even know those norms anyway. Most things exist as an extension of self. So, concepts like the self-determination of other people or family pets are foreign concepts.

When we enter adolescence we start moving to the second or third stage depending on how much we develop as people. We recognize the rules and norms of society and we follow them because we are afraid of what will happen if we don’t. That’s the second stage. A good chunk of the population never gets past this point and as long as we get to this point then society functions smoothly. The third stage involved us developing our own moral and ethical code that can exist simultaneously with the norms of society. These norms are usually beyond that of society and move us to a higher moral plain. It is more the question of what we do when the world isn’t watching.

It is this paradigm that has many Americans trapped in his moment. It is the belief that someone that might be guilty of the same kind of nepotism that we see in our walks of life is somehow morally equivalent to someone that has brazenly broken the law at every turn. Ultimately, the same is true for all of these indictments. It all seems too much. No one could be that horrible. So, it immediately seems like a double standard. We want to indict the other guy because we “know” he must be doing the small stuff. If your mind will not allow you to do the big stuff then it will have difficulty recognizing the big stuff that other people are doing.

Essentially we are watching a Discovery True Crime documentary before our very eyes. One of my favorites involves the “monsters” in our own home. We didn’t think they could do it, but there were signs. Signs. In each and every episode the living victims talk about how they saw some horrible things, but couldn’t believe that the monster would do THAT. The audience is frantically shouting, “get out now. Leave. Hurry and don’t look back.” Yet, it never seems to happen. Those willing to do the big are monsters. We elected a monster in 2016. He will keep doing these things. He has been indicted in four different jurisdictions. He was found civilly liable for sexual assault in a fifth jurisdiction. He is overtly threatening judges, lawyers, and witnesses. He is calling on his supporters to fight in his name. He isn’t hinting at it anymore. Go big or go home. When someone tells you who they really are you have to believe them.

One of the principals I used to work for had a motto: it matters. Ultimately, what that meant is that everything matters. Unfortunately, that can’t literally be true. If everything matters then nothing really matters. This governing philosophy impacts so many things. It impacts our political priorities. It impacts our priorities in education. It impacts our priorities individually as we run through life.

Occasionally, the world of sports and the political world collide. Star basketball player Brandon Miller is a perfect example. For those that don’t want to go down the rabbit hole, he was involved in a fatal shooting in January. He did not pull the trigger, but the gun was supplied by him. From here we get into the normal rigmarole of whether he possessed the gun legally, knew how the gun would be used beforehand, or even if he knew the gun was in possession prior to the shooting. What we know is that the shooter asked him to bring the gun via text message before he arrived. He may not have read the text before leaving or didn’t realize he was actually bringing the gun.

This case is interesting for any number of reasons. For one, he is still playing basketball and has since the incident occurred. The university, his coach, and the athletic department presumably knew about the incident after it happened in January. We are in damn near March and he is still leading his team in scoring and driving them to a number two overall ranking. He hasn’t been charged with a crime, so I guess they legally can do that. However, as we have discussed before, there is a huge difference between whether we CAN do something and whether we SHOULD do something.

This is where we ask a few common sense questions. If your best friend calls you up or texts you after midnight and casually says, “oh, and can you bring the gun?” you would think just about everyone would ask some very pointed questions. After all, very little good can come of that situation. His attorneys will obviously argue that he couldn’t foresee what would happen. Maybe he didn’t know that a murder would occur, but he should have known something.

I’d be remiss not to point out the similarities between Miller and Kyle Rittenhouse. No, he didn’t bring an AR-15. He wasn’t protecting property. However, the language surrounding it is similar. Maybe he legally could possess the gun. Maybe he was returning the property to his friend. Maybe Rittenhouse could legally bring an AR-15 over straight lines. Maybe he had a legal right to defend himself. Maybe a lot of things. What we know is that neither of them should have been doing these things.

There is a difference between legal culpability and moral culpability. More importantly, notice the difference between the groups of people that make excuses for each of these young men. I guarantee that the intrinsic circle in the Venn diagram will be very small. As an educator, I can’t help but think that we’ve failed these young men. We’ve made excuses for both of them for different reasons. One can run, jump, and shoot better than most of us. Another fit a narrative of the good guy with a gun. In the not so distance past, both would feel some level of shame that would cause them to withdraw for at least a time so they could rebuild their image. March Madness is just around the corner. Sadly, the time for culpability or personal responsibility will have to wait.

Sometimes you can be surprised where you find good writing. Bill James is the preeminent baseball statistician from the last 50 years. However, what makes him unique is not necessarily how good his statistics are, but in how artfully he uses them to craft a narrative. I still remember his foreword in the first edition of the Fielding Bible.

He simply described watching video of Adam Everett and Derek Jeter play shortstop. He instinctively knew that he was watching the best and the worst defensive shortstops in the game. Without seeing the numbers he couldn’t tell you which one was which, but the eyeball test didn’t fail. They were polar opposites of each other.

The same thing is happening in Texas in the governor’s race. You can approach these things with snark, sarcasm, and all of the disdain you can muster. I imagine many people will. What I’m prepared to say beyond a shadow of a doubt is that one of these candidates is the kind of human being we should all aspire to be. The other is just not a very good person. I’m not sure of any other way to put it.

The juxtaposition can be seen most clearly in what is happening with a North Texas family. Greg Abbott has them under investigation because they have a transgender teen. Beto O’Rourke visited them on Mother’s Day and even cooked dinner for them.

To be perfectly fair, it is reasonable to ask whether O’Rourke would have visited them in a year when he wasn’t running for statewide office. I’m guessing he wouldn’t have. Would he have helped them cook dinner if the cameras weren’t there taking pictures? Again, I’m guessing the answer is no.

Then again, we could ask the same of Abbott. Would he be investigating a family for child abuse if this weren’t an election year? Would he threaten Texas families with charges and family separation if the movers and shakers in his party weren’t applying that pressure? My guess is also no.

So, here we are. We are left with the most vivid example of the difference between the two parties. One party wants to help make the world a better place and safer for all of its citizens. One party does not. One party wants to reach into homes and into people’s bodies to impose its will. One party does not. At this point it doesn’t make much sense to point out who is who and which is which. Everyone must answer that for themselves. What we can’t do is assert that they are all the same. Clearly they are not. One of these must win and one of these must be driven from polite society. I’ll leave the which is which up to you.

It started innocently enough. Someone on Astros twitter innocently enough claimed that it cost them 75 dollars to fill up their tank with gas. They apparently drive a larger vehicle with a larger tank. In the end, they thanked Joe Biden.

Some people continue to blame Biden for expensive gas. Others defend Biden’s moves and assert that things will get better. The third group simply point out that presidents don’t have as much control over market forces as people would like to think they could.

Then, the author of the opening tweet chimes in with the money line. I’m not going to torpedo the person here, so I’ll paraphrase. Essentially they said that 75 dollars seemed to be the price some are willing to pay not to have mean tweets.

Naturally, the hounds of war descended on that person. I’m somewhat ashamed that I was one of them. I’m ashamed because I know the person likely wasn’t completely serious and was just fishing for a reaction.

Still, a larger point needs to be made. To put things very simply, there is a minimum bottom level of humanity necessary for leadership. It isn’t about mean tweets. It isn’t about insulting of women, minorities, disadvantaged, handicapped, or struggling nations. It isn’t about a craven disregard for the suffering of others. It isn’t about personal discretions so depraved that all sense of shame has escaped.

One could almost look past those things. Except those things become markers for all of the other stuff. How could someone gleefully lock kids in cages? How could someone skimp on hurricane relief and insult those that need it? How could someone demagogue entire groups of people and compare them with racists and xenophobes as if they are the same? Finally, how could someone gaslight an entire pandemic and spread misinformation until a million Americans wind up dead?

Well, it takes someone with such a deficiency in character on those first things that they become capable of doing those other things. One of the things we used to collectively understand is that whether we are miserly or generous, conservative or liberal, religious or not religious, there was a foundation of humanity necessary to lead. No one that fails to meet that bar need apply. Except this last time someone did apply and they won.

No political victory big or small is worth human depravity. No economic or social plank is worth it. Gas may cost an extra 20 or 30 bucks a tank. There could be a hike in income tax or maybe supply chains are slower. Those things may be under the president’s control, but usually they aren’t. The president is usually just a piece of the machinery that makes the world turn and life to run smoothly. He or she can’t do it alone.

Even if we were to disregard all of that, there is a minimum measure of humanity needed for the job. We have certainly elected men with character flaws before. We’ve had huge battles over which flaws were worse and which ones were acceptable. Those are usually worthwhile discussions until we happened on a man without character flaws. He didn’t have any character flaws because he has no character. No one has ever successfully put a price tag on character, but I’m positive it is worth more than 20 bucks in gas.