That's a pretty sophisticated view, J_A_B. Life is more complicated than black and white choices and judgments, as appealling as that simplicity may appear. Refusal to recognize shades of grey can lead to discord and discomfort, or worse -disaster. So while I can say its always wrong according the the letter of the law, case by case my judgement may vary.
Personally I have decided that honor and integrity do not necessarily indicate how effective a political leader will be. Clinton no doubt behaved in a personally sleazy manner yet I think his leadership style was effective in the Presidency. Certainly they were my best economic years; the middle classes' situation and prospects seemed better off at the end of his term than at the beginning.
Closer to home, Jesse Ventura was a one-term governor who won office on a wave of popularity partly due to his celebrity, but also due to his bold, tell-it-like-it-is non-partisan, non-political personality. Here was a man of honor and integrity, an outsider, who was against all insiders. After a popular year or two, his critics and the media got the best of him, and his goodwill was spent. The remainder of his term degenerated into one big catfight between his office, the state legislature, and the media. It was a shame, but I think it showed he lacked certain qualities characteristic of effective leaders.
General Sir Douglas Haig of the BEF in WWI may have been a man of integity and honor, but his steadfast leadership in the Battle of the Somme was nothing short of a catastrophe for the British. He marched his 750,000 troops into the teeth of well-fortified German positions in the summer of 1916 and took 58,000 casualities in the first day alone. Undeterred, he continued to attack throughtou the next few months. In the end, the British lost some 420,000 men for 12 measly km of territory. Here, the ability to objectively look at the situation and change tactics if required could've saved thousands of lives.
