Governing ourselves: Candidates of poor character are a problem we the people can fix 74%
By Jay Cost0%
6/28/2026, 6:00:00 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Indoctrination, and False Dilemma, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 19.8% saturation with 193 hits. Analysis detected 1,853 faulty-reasoning hits from 973 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.9% and a BS Rank of 74% (5,616 of 21,112 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.40% of the article peer group.
This is the age of the YOLO candidate.
Are you a terrible person with a clear record of awfulness?
You would be perfect for the U.S.
Senate!
Democrats have found just that sort of guy in Maine; Republicans have found one in Texas.
Both would be perfect additions to the large and growing cast of bloviators, morons, and preening hacks that constitute what was once known as the world’s most deliberative body.
Both sides justify these candidates along similar lines: “[Institution or policy] has failed [interest or faction that sees its demands as indistinguishable from the national interest].
Our only response is to elect [person of bad character that we like].
And anyway, the other side has done worse!”
These arguments often have a ring of partial truth to them.
Lots of policies are not working, our system of government stubbornly resists change, and people are unhappy about the status quo.
Still, a little perspective is called for.
Our current state of the union could certainly be better, but it is not like it is 1929, or 1941, or even 1968, for that matter.
Inflation is still running a little hot.
Education and healthcare in particular are too expensive.
But the wheels are not coming off.
And even if they were, do we the people really have the right to elect any random jackass to office?
Sure, we have the power, in the sense that our system of government is premised on the principle of majority rule.
If half plus one of Maine voters elect the guy with the Nazi tattoo to the Senate, he gets to go.
But we the people have a duty to at least try to elect good people to government.
That point often gets missed in our hyper-democratic age.
Politicians always speak reverently of the American people — never in error, always legitimate in its demands, perpetually wise.
But our system of government is a republic that seeks to temper the majoritarian impulse, as it can often be unwise.
This is why our system has features like separation of powers, bicameralism, and checks and balances.
The point of all this is to empower the people to rule but reduce the chance they misrule.
And while the founders did not believe the people would possess civic virtue to a heroic level, they did anticipate at least a minimal threshold of wisdom.
As James Madison wrote in Federalist 55, “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.
Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.”
And in Federalist 57, Madison talks about the need “to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society.”
But all this has to start with we the people.
If average Americans are not insisting on wise and prudent leaders to go into government, the whole process of representation malfunctions.
The government stops reflecting our best virtues and instead represents our worst impulses.
That means we should be supporting candidates that are not just principled, but also exhibit some of the qualities leaders should possess.
Do they understand how our government actually works?
Can they grasp the complicated details of public policy?
Do they have an open mind?
Are they willing to compromise when opportunities for common ground appear?
Do they have a good temperament?
Have they conducted themselves honorably in their personal lives?
Not everybody is going to be a George Washington.
But he should still be the standard by which we measure our leaders.
When the Constitutional Convention adjourned, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
His famous response was, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Franklin’s response captures the essence of the Constitution.
Despite all its various instruments to prevent the abuse of power, the government it creates is a republic only if we ourselves do our part.
Are we really doing that in 2026?
A quick glance at the members of the U.S.
Congress suggests the answer is: not as well as we could.
No doubt, there are many quality people in our legislature, but the number of disreputable characters is large, and looks to keep growing.
And we the people have no excuse.
In the 19th century, we could blame the party machines for foisting bad candidates upon us, forcing us to pick among terrible options.
But in the age of party primaries, the power to select from an array of potential options now rests with the people alone.
We could choose to elevate literally anybody to public office.
If bad people are being elevated, that is our fault, not some cabal of insiders.
As we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it is worth remembering that we are now the legatees of a great tradition of republican self-government.
Indeed, ours is the greatest tradition — for we proved to the world, at that point universally in one form of tyranny or another, that the people can govern themselves.
Today, we do not just get to enjoy the benefits of what our forefathers had done.
We must continue in that tradition.
That means taking the job of citizen more seriously than we do.
It is not just a matter of government responding to our demands, but also making sure that we are electing fit characters to do the work.
We’re not doing that nearly as well as we could be.
Jay Cost (@jaycost) is the Gerald R.
Ford senior nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Speakers
3speakers13%attributed speech845writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageJay Cost
7 attributed words5.5% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.