F.D.R. died in the company of a lady who was not his wife. J.F.K. was, well, J.F.K. Lincoln had mental health problems and was clinically depressed. Then, there was King David. Others delved into corruption that affected policies which brutalized the nation or populations within the nation. Someone has to sort these out and decide what is most important as an element of decision-making criteria. Is it a human sin with a small circle of scandal or is it a scandalous cancer that threatens the course of the future?

This is one of the challenges of the season when we weigh issues, character, personality, leadership abilities, wisdom, discretion, and truth. This is the challenge of the voter who is seeking to decide how to vote, what news to spread, what conversations should be loudest, and what should cause a candidate to sink or swim.

I am trying to rewrite an old article written first to address a the scandal of a legislator decades ago. I am wondering if any of the principles might apply.

Scandals and Sandals

There is usually a scandal in Washington – the kind we love, juicy, sexual, tawdry, and polarizing.

And the Man in sandals walks among us unshaken, knowing what He has always known – that we are vulnerable and flawed and ever so needy of His grace and mercy.

Here is what we do, and this is not to minimize the shock value or the horror of anyone being victimized: we polarize. We let the nasty news back up whatever position we have already entrenched ourselves in:

"See, I told you that all fibberwidgets (Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, political "liberals," political "conservatives", etc… ) were ignobilities."

And, if we happen to be elected to something and affiliated with a party, we will gravitate in one of two directions:

•  Make political points from it.
•  Avoid or minimize political damage from it.

And this is where the hypocrisy lies whether we were Republicans lam-blasting Democrats or Democrats doing the same to Republicans. We take the sinless stance and gather a handful of stones. And if we happen to be related by party or ideology, we distance ourselves and change the subject.

All the while, this has little to do with ideology, party affiliation, or public policy. It is about human flaws.

I must interject, during an election time, that some policies are quite scandalous themselves in that they oppress the powerless, suppress their voices and votes, marginalize populations, and defy compassion … but that is not today's topic.

Once we recognize our opponent's flaws, we buy into the culture of cynicism and dehumanize the offender.

Here is an alternative approach to start open our dialogue:

The "opposite party' keep its mouth shut and quietly communicate with the party of the offender that it wants to give it a chance to take the lead on the housecleaning. wouldn't that be something? Give the points away.

My goodness, that might actually be civil. we can't have that.

And the Man in Sandals walks among us and shakes His head.

We are in one of those disgusting seasons where every opportunity for statesmanship is about to be shunned for good old-fashioned mudslinging after which the culprits will try to convince us that because they wear nice suits and have titles such as Senator and Congressman, they are deserving of our respect and we should consider them intelligent and conscientious patriots.

We are to expect them to respect us and work for our best interests when they can't even treat each other with respect, good will, and decency.

And when one of them falls in a big way, I almost gravitate toward him with sympathy because at least he is no longer actively assassinating the character of his opponents, maligning their motives, or labeling them with meaningless terms in an attempt to avoid honest debate.

Again, I am not talking about patterns of disregard for truth, long history of graft and corruption, heartless policies, or serious deficits of character pervasive in  a system of cover-up and disregard for integrity. I am talking about human failings in isolated people and relationships.

I am talking about the capacity to weigh things, discern truth, have compassion, be reasonable, and make our best efforts toward conciliation without surrendering our own integrity.

I am guess there will be people on various sides (there are never just two) of the political spectrum who will identify with what I am saying and point the finger at the other side – which is my point.

The Man in Sandals walks among our scandals but is not scandalized.