The Difference Between Having Character and Being a Character: Why We Must Choose Substance Over Spectacle in 2024
In today’s political landscape, the line between “having character” and “being a character” has never been more blurred. We live in a time where personality-driven politics dominate the headlines, where being entertaining or “owning the opposition” gets more air time than actual substance. But here’s the thing—when we focus on the spectacle, we lose sight of what really matters: leadership with integrity, empathy, and vision.
There’s a fundamental difference between someone who has character and someone who is content with simply being a character. One is rooted in values, guided by principles that serve the greater good, and remains steady under pressure. The other? It’s all smoke and mirrors—a performance designed to distract and entertain but without the foundation needed to navigate the serious, complex issues that define our time.
What Does It Mean to Have Character?
Having character means standing for something, even when it’s unpopular. It means possessing a moral compass that points toward fairness, equity, and justice. It means showing up for the job because you care about the people you serve, not because you crave the spotlight.
Leaders with character aren’t afraid to make difficult decisions. They don’t pander to the crowd or shape-shift to fit the moment. Instead, they take the time to understand the nuances of the issues, consider the long-term impact of their choices, and prioritize doing the right thing over the easy thing. They are accountable to the people, not to their egos.
Think of leaders like Mamie Till Mobley or John Lewis—people whose work speaks for itself, who didn’t seek fame but instead earned respect through years of dedication to causes bigger than themselves. Their strength of character is not just evident in what they say, but in what they do, especially when no one is watching.
What Does It Mean to Be a Character?
On the other hand, being a character is about playing to the cameras. It’s about creating a larger-than-life persona, something that looks good on Twitter or makes for a viral clip on the evening news. But once the cameras are off, there’s little to no follow-through.
Characters in politics love the game more than the work. They chase the headlines, not the policies. They are more interested in crafting a witty soundbite than engaging in the painstaking, often unglamorous work of governance. We’ve seen this time and again, particularly in the rise of leaders who’ve mastered the art of performance but lack the conviction to back it up.
These are the politicians who will flip-flop on issues based on what gets them the most applause or retweets. They care more about winning the next election than making meaningful, lasting change. And the danger here is that when you elect a character, what you get is a show—not solutions.
When we talk about character, Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz are two leaders who embody that ideal. Harris, with her unwavering commitment to justice and equity, has spent her career focused on advocating for marginalized communities. She’s not concerned with flashiness—she’s focused on the work. Governor Tim Walz, with his deep background as a teacher and public servant, has shown that leadership is about showing up for everyone, especially when it’s difficult.
In contrast, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance operate under a different ethos. Trump, throughout his presidency, reveled in the chaos he created, more interested in being the center of attention than solving the nation’s problems. His disregard for accountability and the rule of law was evident in every decision he made, from his mishandling of the pandemic to his incitement of the January 6 insurrection.
J.D. Vance, once a critic of Trump, has fully embraced the performative politics that prize celebrity over substance. Instead of offering meaningful solutions to the very real issues facing Ohioans, Vance has chosen to double down on the divisive rhetoric that plays well on cable news but does nothing to help struggling families in his state. They just after whatever stokes their egos in order to hold onto power, no matter the cost to democracy or the people they claim to represent.
Why We Must Choose Leaders with Character
The challenges we face today—racial injustice, economic inequality, climate change, healthcare reform—require serious leadership. We don’t need someone who will just give a good speech or tweet something snappy. We need leaders who are ready to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work. Leaders who understand that governing is about service, not self-promotion.
In a time when so many people feel disillusioned by the political system, it’s tempting to gravitate toward the loudest voice in the room. But that loud voice doesn’t always lead to meaningful progress. Too often, it’s just noise.
Our next generation of leaders needs to embody character—genuine character. People who are transparent, honest, and accountable. People who admit when they don’t know something and are willing to learn. People who listen to the experiences of those most affected by the policies they create.
When we vote, we’re not just choosing someone to hold a title; we’re choosing someone to represent us, to make decisions that will impact our lives and the lives of future generations. We owe it to ourselves to pick people who are in it for the right reasons—people who care about results, not ratings.
The Cost of Choosing a Character
The cost of electing a character over someone with character is steep. We end up with leaders who are more concerned with looking good than doing good. We get politicians who dodge accountability, deflect responsibility, and push the blame onto others when things go wrong. And in the end, it’s the people who suffer—especially the most vulnerable among us.
So, as we approach this election and those in the future, let’s remember the difference between having character and being a character. Let’s demand more from our leaders. Let’s look for those who show, through their actions and not just their words, that they’re here to serve the people, not their own egos.
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have character. They live the covenant of substance: "for the people." Donald Trump and J.D. Vance? Their covenant is spectacle: "fuck 'the people.’" It’s time to stop settling for the spectacle and start choosing substance. Our future depends on it.
