What does it mean when a national leader consistently displays a cynical and negative view of his fellow citizens' ethical instincts? There are four possibilities, three of which reflect badly on him. It may be that his opinion of human nature is so low because his own ethical instincts are warped, and he assumes that everyone else has the same values as he does. It could be that he holds others, particularly his adversaries, in low regard, according them neither respect nor a fair chance to prove that their ethical instincts are every bit as admirable as his own. Perhaps the cynical individual is intentionally misrepresenting the truth for notoriety or other personal gain. The fourth alternative, of course, is that he is right.

The prominent national figure whose statements have raised this question more than once is Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel of New York. For several years he has been advocating the reinstatement of the draft as a peace measure, claiming that our nation's leaders would never send in troops to fight if more of their own sons and daughters were in the armed services and therefore potentially at risk.

On this contention, the fourth alternative above is not available to Rangel. It is obviously and demonstrably false and one doesn't have to cite historical data to disprove it. Right now, Senator John McCain is reportedly supporting a short-term increase in the number of troops deployed in Iraq even though his son could well be sent there as a result. There is no evidence at all that in this attitude McCain is unique or even in the minority. Rangel's argument for the draft is either a mass slur on every political decision-maker or an embarrassingly dumb opinion that is squarely at odds with history and human nature.

The latest target for Rangel's dim view of American values is the troops themselves. Rangel has explicitly endorsed the sentiment behind John Kerry's 'botched joke' about only the dumb or unschooled ending up in the military. Last month, Rangel told "Fox News Sunday:

"If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career, or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq…If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment."

To his credit, Rangel at least has the courage to stand by the clear meaning of his words, unlike Senator Kerry, who said that someone would have to be "crazy" to think he intended to say precisely what Rangel did say. But that's where Rangel's credit ends. As with his fantasy that political and military leaders would never put their country's welfare above their children's safety, Rangel's statement dismisses principle, selflessness, responsibility, commitment, courage and civic duty as plausible motivations for a young man or woman to volunteer for combat. Americans only care about themselves, he believes; they'll fight if the only alternative is jail, unemployment, failure or poverty. As for dedication to American values, democracy, and long-term peace? That's for saps and suckers, in Charlie Rangel's world.

Not surprisingly, the American Legion demanded an apology from Rangel "for suggesting that American troops would not choose to fight in Iraq if they had other employment options." Rangel ignored its complaint, and most of the news media, print and broadcast, yawned at his provocative comments. One of the few news commentators that did not let them go unchallenged was the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web" blog authored by James Taranto at http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/. It posted dozens of indignant letters from military personnel taking issue with Rangel. All of them successfully rebut his claim. This letter, by naval officer Ben Kohlman, is representative:

"… I think the comments attributed to Rep. Rangel reveal not only the mindset of liberal policy makers in relation to the military, but also their view of what I like to call "duty to the self." Those that achieve the greatest academic achievement usually tend to be the most self-centered, imagining their indispensability to the world as a whole. Why should someone give up four years (or more!) of comfort and high earning potential to be subjected to months away from family, cramped living conditions, and the legally binding orders of others? In our modern, liberated, self-centered mind, such a thought is inconceivable… This view, in and of itself, is at odds with the underlying selflessness that must be present for an effective member of the armed forces. So I don't so much take it as insulting as revealing a gross negligence in comprehending the true nature of sacrifice.

I am a young naval officer, and for the record, I graduated with both Latin and departmental honors from a top 10 university. I was named "Greek Man of the Year" and held numerous leadership positions throughout campus. One of my good friends, who happens to be a Marine just back from Iraq, won the freshman writing award at the same institution, and also graduated with honors. My peers in our squadron's ready room have masters degrees from MIT and Ivies. My best friend earned a graduate degree from Stanford before his current service in Afghanistan. My roommate's wife, a Marine signals-intelligence officer, recently finished up work at Cambridge in chemistry stemming from a Gates scholarship.

We are all under 26, and had we so chosen, certainly could have had the "option of having a decent career" apart from the military. I cite these things not to egotistically promote our individual accomplishments, but only to show that I personally know the representative is wrong.

He scoffed at our true willingness to fight. Ironically, as an aside, since the beginning of the Iraq war, my only desire has been to get over there and fight, but to no avail, as my current military obligations have me training elsewhere. Anyway, we fight because we recognize that the best years of our lives are better spent serving something bigger than ourselves than serving selfish ends. We fight knowing that for all the hardship and tears shed over being away from loved ones, the defense of our Republic, and even the giving of our lives, is far more worthy than going through life focused on wealth and pleasure.

It is undoubtedly true that to the last, we all would like nothing better than to settle down, have a family, and raise them in peace, being there for every birthday and anniversary. We, too, would like to pursue jobs that pay tens of thousands more per year than we currently receive. I can't tell you how many times I've looked at my friends in law school and other prestigious professions in envy at the "opportunities" they have while I "endure" months of boredom.

But it is also true that there are men and ideologies in the world that would like nothing better than to rip those things away from many in our population who enjoy such blessings. We will not stand idly by and allow that to happen. Our educational and academic accomplishments make us more duty bound to serve the country that enabled us, better than any other, to realize our full potential. These past few years of service have encompassed the greatest struggles and most trying times of my entire life, but ultimately, that is the cost of defending an ideology of freedom. Indeed, it is that cost itself that brings true value to freedom…"

An opinion is, by itself, seldom unethical when honestly stated and sincerely held. But national leaders such as Congressman Rangel have special obligations. One of them, obviously, is to have sufficient respect for the men and women of the armed services stationed in a war zone not to publicly deride them as losers and fools. Another obligation, even more important, is to uphold and strengthen the ideals and values that form the philosophical foundation of American democracy.

While it is true that we all are duty-bound to try to do the right thing regardless of what others may do, it cannot be denied that it is much easier to be virtuous when we are surrounded by virtuous role models. It is easier to put ethical considerations above selfish ones when such conduct is the rule and not the exception, and easier to make sacrifices when others are making sacrifices as well. When a national leader like Rangel publicly denies that Americans will risk their lives for their country unless they have no productive lives to risk, he is falsely testifying to the existence of a cultural norm that is profoundly unethical and corrosive to our values. His statement is more than a mere opinion; his words are likely to influence the conduct of others who trust and respect him. Usually the old warning, "If you keep saying something is true, you may make it so" is nonsense. This is one instance where the warning is apt.

None of this has anything to do with the wisdom of invading Iraq, the Bush administration's war strategies, or politics. Rangel's comments would be unacceptable at any time in the nation's history, during peace or war. Nor can Rangel's statement be justified by the undeniable fact that military service has always been an attractive option for men lacking marketable skills and employment opportunities. Rangel didn't say that. What he said was that no individual who did have promising career options would ever sacrifice them to fight fir his or her country. Whether Rangel thinks that Americans are incapable of noble conduct, or thinks selfless and courageous service to one's country is proof of mental deficiency, such public statements are inconsistent with his high office and constitute a misuse of his status and influence by using them to undermine ethical ideals.

And that's no joke.