But man, proud man!
Dress'd in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assur'd,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks
before high heaven
As make the angels weep.
Measure for Measure
William Shakespeare
Great literature describes the affinities throughout history between despots and their ambitious, and sometimes unwitting, enablers. Literature reflects the stereotypes.
This is one reason why the often scoffed Classics need to be read by each generation and by every ethnic group.
Another reason to read such writers as Shakespeare is to keep the language alive and comprehensive to successive generations; to keep the culture alive so that it's values can mutate into a better version of itself.
Language reflects the evolution of human aspirations and is valuable for nurturing the humanity of people. It is the also the vehicle for recording History; as is great fiction.
Anomalies within a culture are subjects for Art. Art points the way to a higher realm of thought, influencing social experiments which can lead to positive change in that culture. Language is the engine which drives it. Language makes us stop and think.
Cultural erasure of historical examples of moral failure, by otherwise brilliant leaders, such as Caesar, Lenin, 1930s German religious leaders, Pope Pius XII, Mao, et al; is a missed opportunity to teach recognition of common patterns of behavior by authoritarians from many different cultures, and to prepare citizens to thoughtfully question or reject such people as leaders. In addition,there are the examples of such heroes of the American Revolution as Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, and Madison, who failed by compromising the principles of freedom and equality. Without studying such people in context, we lose the ability to distinguish the dichotomy between personal profit and the common good.
For example, in tearing down his monuments, we must not forget that Robert E.Lee, an exemplary cadet at West Point, noted for his intellect and his brilliance as a soldier, and, on many levels, with a record as a solid citizen, failed, at the most crucial moment testing his character, declining Lincoln's offer to make him the General of the Union Army as rebellion threatened the United States. How could it be, such a man could choose defense of an immoral economic system over the best human values which, on many other levels, he had adhered to throughout his career?
The psychology of Lee's moral choice would make a good subject for discussion in another context: in relation to a study of contemporary figures in government through their actions and responses to questionable policies of leadership. Generals Kelly, McMaster, and others in the current Administration showed how easy it was to enable an authoritarian's worst impulses without intending to. How long can a moral being remain silent in the realm of an amoral authoritarian leader without losing all personal moral authority? Barr's legalistic compromises vs. Sally Yates' firm adherence to the Law and to the Truth comes to mind. She emerged with her honor intact.
Morality eventually flows in to fill the vacuum that raw ambition creates. Humanity craves to be better.
Let's not vote for the man who makes the angels weep.