Newt Gingrich and the Vicissitudes of Character

In laying the groundwork for an expected run for the presidency, Newt Gingrich is seeking to reinvent himself, or at least part of himself. Not his mind, as almost everyone agrees that he is one of the biggest thinkers in the crowded republican field. Not his drive and managerial ability, as he is well remembered as a shrewd tactician. Not even his conservative bona fides, as his association with the 1994 Contract With America is difficult to forget. It's that other quality that is often touted as principal factor in deciding whom to elect: character.

Mr. Gingrich, as many will recall, has had a somewhat checkered past when it comes to issues of virtue. It was during the height of the Lewinsky scandal that then Speaker Gingrich led the charge to impeach President Clinton while he was simultaneously carrying on an affair with a congressional staffer, Callista Bisek, who is now his third wife. This hypocrisy, combined with other examples of hubris and infidelity, stand as a possible Achilles Heel in the upcoming elections. His character, many argue, is flawed.

To answer his critics, Gingrich readily admits that he has engaged in inappropriate behavior in the past, but that he has now changed. In the upcoming election cycle, his political fortunes are likely to be greatly determined in part by which view of his character prevails. To that end, his wife is taking on the role of character witness. She repeatedly extols his virtues in a concerted effort to let any doubters know that Newt is a new man - that his character has been reformed. But these actions, no less than the judgments we make of the man (and often of ourselves), evidence a misguided view of what character is, and how it truly works.

Most people ascribe to the view that early on individuals decide whether to listen to the angel or devil that metaphorically sit on their shoulders and, in so doing, set the course of their life. Through sheer willpower and reasoned thought, the path to virtue can be followed. But this view of character does not hold up under scientific scrutiny. The past decade of research has repeatedly shown that the moral actions of individuals evidence much greater variability than a simple view of stable character would suggest.

Take hypocrisy. Increasing amounts of research show convincingly that the label hypocrite is not only reserved for politicians like Mr. Gingrich or ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer. As research from our lab has repeatedly shown, hypocrisy appears to be a fundamental part of the human condition. To demonstrate this, we often present individuals with two tasks that need to be completed: one long and onerous, the other short and fun. We give them a coin to flip to decide whether they or the person waiting in the room outside to go next will complete the onerous task. We then leave them alone while viewing their subsequent actions on hidden video surveillance. Once left to their own devices, 90% of people do not flip the coin; they simply give themselves the good task dooming the next person to drudgery. When they're later asked anonymously how fairly they behaved, they judge their actions as acceptable. However, when people are asked to judge the exact same action committed by another person, they universally condemn his or her not flipping the coin and taking the pleasant option for themselves. After all, the mind has no need to rationalize away another person's bad behavior.

Much of how humans comport themselves appears to be dictated by competing forces favoring short- and long-term rewards that battle it out under our sense of conscious experience. When the rewards of expedience are high, they can overcome the cautions of being labeled a hypocrite, or at least seem to in the heat of the moment.

What does this mean for Mr. Gingrich? A few things. First, change is possible, as character is not fixed. Past iniquitous actions do not indelibly mark one as morally bereft. If, however, any such change is to be lasting, it requires accepting the view that willpower and clear reasoning alone cannot determine character. To the contrary, it requires understanding how subtle aspects of one's situation can and do alter moral decisions. Second, it stands as a warning to his detractors that the capacity for moral failings resides in us all. And third, it suggests that in the end, his past failings may not hurt him much among his republican brethren. Our experiments also revealed that individuals are not only more lenient in judging their own transgressions, but also in judging those of members of "their team." If the person they watched take the good option for himself just happened to be wearing the same color wristband as they were, all was fine with his actions. If it was the other color, he was corrupt for not flipping the coin. In politics, then, seeing someone as a hypocrite may depend on whether their party affiliation matches our own.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

For more content, see www.outofcharacterbook.com