“Integrity,” from the Latin integer, means “whole” or “complete.”
The term has come to relate to a person’s inner sense of wholeness or completeness regarding consistency and high standards of character related to beliefs, values, honesty, truth, morality, and ethics. Institutions are also assessed in terms of their overarching integrity based on similar qualities as on the individual personal level.
Each person must ask themself the question continually over the course of their lives: How much of myself – my integrity, my wholeness – do I desire to hold onto no matter what, and what if anything am I willing to sacrifice for one reason or another?
These reasons may include anything from being liked and admired by following the pack even though one knows to do so violates some basic principle one holds dear, to acting for financial or political expediency.
In the U.S. House of Representatives’ dual impeachment hearings and subsequent Senate trials of Donald John Trump, the concept and demonstration of this precious notion of integrity must function as our lens of perception in assessing the validity and reliability of the process.
Validity and reliability serve as the two foundational standards on which quality research and in coming to the truth rests. Validity concerns the accuracy of what the research is constructed to measure, and reliability is about the consistency of the research methods or techniques when used in subsequent or similar contexts or by other researchers.
We must apply “integrity” as our lens of perception when assessing multiple and simultaneous levels: individual “players” within the Executive and Legislative branches, the presentations of the prosecutorial and defense teams, and the Congress as a larger body. We also must not forget to include the press in their reporting of events.
The jury has already ruled on the integrity of the primary defendant in the case, Donald John Trump. Even his defense team failed to attempt to champion this man’s character or deflect accusations of his corrupt words and actions.
Obviously, it is clear for anyone to understand that Donald John Trump long ago relinquished virtually every part of his integrity – including his empathy, care, and concern for others and his reliance on the truth – for personal aggrandizement, financial gain, and power. By so doing, only a hollow and tattered shell of a human being remains.
But how many others will it take to follow Donald Trump to the precipice, to the very edge of the cliff before sycophants begin to understand that nothing, no nothing, is more important than one’s intact soul, that nothing is more important than one’s integrity?
At the end of my life, I would like to be able to say to myself that my integrity has remained largely intact, which I maintained by understanding and owning up to those occasions when I lost my way and, in the process, lost pieces of myself. At those times I hope I can say that I tried at least to make amends to those I may have injured, and, in the process, injured myself.
Wholeness, unfortunately, holds little if any value for some people. They twist themselves into virtual human pretzels to justify actions that are simply indefensible, and fully unjust and unjustifiable. They tell the big and several little lies to others and to themselves.
Forty-three Senate Republicans acquitted Donald John Trump, and, therefore, prevented the Senate from reaching the 67 Senators required to convict the former President of perpetrating the high crimes and misdemeanors to which he stood accused. Even the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, argued that the facts proved the Democratic House Managers’ case.
McConnell, however, and most of the other 42 Republican dissenters based their vote on the false and contrary justification that the Senate did not have the Constitutional authority to convict a former elected official who had already left office.
Not only is this justification hypocritical since McConnell himself prevented the Senate from beginning the trial until the new President, Joe Biden, and Vice President, Kamala Harris had been sworn in, but the Senate voted by a majority vote before the trial commenced that the proceedings were, in fact, Constitutional.
The 43 Republicans who voted to acquit not only sacrificed their own integrity but they also further tossed the few residual fragments of the national Republican Party to the winds of time, which at this point, remains as a hollow and tattered shell of its former self.
Whose knows: Ted Crews, or Josh Hawley, or Tom Cotton, or Marco Rubio may have calculated or banked (no pun intended) their “No” vote in the Senate impeachment trial on running for President in 2024. Maybe one of them will “earn” their party’s nomination. Maybe one of them will ascend to the Oval Office. Possibly one may even garner the recently unattainable by Republican presidential candidates of capturing the majority of overall votes cast.
In the case of these men, however, what might be popular is certainly not ethical. What is popular is certainly not moral. And what is popular will never replace the large swatches of themselves, of their integrity, that they so carelessly and frivolously sacrificed.
Hopefully soon, these individuals and the institutional shell that is the Republican Party will come to realize that the Trump train has come to a full stop, and they can jump off without injuring themselves further than they have already. For many, however, their integrity has jumped long ago from the Trump wall and can never be put back together again.
—
This post is republished on Medium.
***
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project and want a deeper connection with our community, please join us as a Premium Member today.
Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
—
Photo credit: Shutterstock