Infidelity and Politicians...who cares?

[ParanoiA]

Am I the only one getting sick of the overblown and quite disturbing practice of the reporting of politicians and their affairs? Why is it any of our business? What does it have to do with their job capacity?

 

My employer doesn't inquire about whether I'm paying hookers or cheating on my wife. Good thing too, because it's none of my employer's business and, contrary to republican belief, is NOT an indication of my trustworthiness in a job capacity.

 

Just because they're a public office holder, suddenly we have to know all about their personal life? I'm not buying it. I'm not buying the idea that their personal life is required to be in an order that I find satisfactory to get a job in politics.

 

And no, appeals to their constituent representation and tax payer money don't move me either. I don't care if they have sex with chickens, I want them to do a good job at politics, legislation, compromise, strategy and etc - you know...the actual skills that matter to that job.

 

Am I way off here?

[ecoli]

I think it matters if what they're doing is illegal. We don't want people who break our laws making them.

[bascule]

We were hearing quote a different tune some 8 years ago... perhaps the greater concern is the hypocrisy of the individuals involved... many of whom 10 years ago were lambasting Clinton for his infidelity. It's just a further indicator of massive, systemic corruption and hypocrisy.

 

Personally I'm all for it... what we're experiencing lately has people motivated to vote for change. The other day I was in the local hippie nexus, the super eco-friendly vegan burger joint, and I saw a "Ron Paul for President" sticker on their soda machine. Here's a man who is quite conservative, but yet has appeal to extreme hippie liberals.

 

I'm all for the media making us hate the status quo. It's kind of a bad situation.

[ParanoiA]

We were hearing quote a different tune some 8 years ago... perhaps the greater concern is the hypocrisy of the individuals involved... many of whom 10 years ago were lambasting Clinton for his infidelity. It's just a further indicator of massive, systemic corruption and hypocrisy.

 

Personally I'm all for it... what we're experiencing lately has people motivated to vote for change. The other day I was in the local hippie nexus, the super eco-friendly vegan burger joint, and I saw a "Ron Paul for President" sticker on their soda machine. Here's a man who is quite conservative, but yet has appeal to extreme hippie liberals.

 

I'm all for the media making us hate the status quo. It's kind of a bad situation.

 

Interesting perspective. I still can't be for it, although I agree it's kind of nice seeing republicans go down for it. However, it was wrong then and it's wrong now, in my opinion of course.

 

Ron Paul is my candidate so far, so maybe I need to get me some of them stickers...

 

I think it matters if what they're doing is illegal. We don't want people who break our laws making them.

 

Ultimately you're right I think. Perhaps I'm being too indifferent about it since I don't think infidelity nor prostitution has any business being legislated in the first place. The government should have nothing to say on a matter between two consenting adults. But, there are all kinds of laws we don't agree with yet we are expected to follow them, so....

[waitforufo]

Should people vote for candidates based on the content of the character? Fidelity is a measure of their character. Society, in my opinion, will always consider infidelity a negative character trait. The media however could inform without turning the disclosure into a media circus.

 

When infidelity includes law breaking then it’s a much bigger deal. As mentioned by Ecoli, we don’t want law breakers making or enforcing our laws.

 

Another issue with the revelation of both character and legal issues is the ability to coerce the politician involved. That is why the media quite correctly makes a bigger deal when exposing the infidelity of Republican politicians. The base voters of Republicans care more about fidelity issues and therefore Republican politicians are more easily compromised by lobbyists.

 

With regard to the Clinton infidelity, ask any woman if she would feel discriminated against if one of her female coworkers, who just happened to be sleeping with the boss, got promoted before them. If you are a manager working for any major US company, you have received government required training explaining how such behavior creates a hostile work environment. Such mandatory training was brought to you by the Democratic Party. Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment. His sex relationships with other female employees was pertinent. His lies to a grand jury were a crime. His party inspired such laws. It wasn’t just a sex thing.

[lucaspa]

Am I the only one getting sick of the overblown and quite disturbing practice of the reporting of politicians and their affairs? Why is it any of our business? What does it have to do with their job capacity?

 

My employer doesn't inquire about whether I'm paying hookers or cheating on my wife. Good thing too, because it's none of my employer's business ...Am I way off here?

 

Not in my opinion. I always thought that Clinton's correct response to reporters about Monica Lewinski was "It's none of your damn business. Even Presidents get to have a private life. Unless you can demonstrate a security breach or some other failure of job performance, go away."

 

Notice I have a couple of qualifiers there.

1. If it does interfere with job performance.

2. If there is a security breach, i.e. the lover is an agent for a foreign power.

3. If it involves hypocrisy to the politician's publicly stated policies. i.e, the politician says homosexual unions should be illegal but has a homosexual affair or if the politician says fathers of out-of-wedlock children should be fined, but has gotten his lover pregnant and is keeping it a secret.

[armygas]

Infidelity is not our [the public's] business. That is between the person and their spouse/partner.

[Pangloss]

I always thought that Clinton's correct response to reporters about Monica Lewinski was "It's none of your damn business. Even Presidents get to have a private life. Unless you can demonstrate a security breach or some other failure of job performance, go away."

 

Too bad that followed "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

[swansont]

Yeah, but since when has a politician lying to the public been illegal?

 

Notice I have a couple of qualifiers there.

1. If it does interfere with job performance.

2. If there is a security breach, i.e. the lover is an agent for a foreign power.

3. If it involves hypocrisy to the politician's publicly stated policies. i.e, the politician says homosexual unions should be illegal but has a homosexual affair or if the politician says fathers of out-of-wedlock children should be fined, but has gotten his lover pregnant and is keeping it a secret.

 

Sen. David Vitter would appear to satisfy that third condition.

 

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2007/07/a_blast_from_vi.php

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015233.php

[ParanoiA]

3. If it involves hypocrisy to the politician's publicly stated policies. i.e, the politician says homosexual unions should be illegal but has a homosexual affair or if the politician says fathers of out-of-wedlock children should be fined, but has gotten his lover pregnant and is keeping it a secret.

 

I'm not so sure hypocrisy is logically relevant to the job. The charge of hypocrisy doesn't make the stated position wrong. In fact, your second example would actually prove him to be quite objective and keeping his personal life separate from his political one...

[lucaspa]

Too bad that followed "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

 

No shit.

I'm not so sure hypocrisy is logically relevant to the job. The charge of hypocrisy doesn't make the stated position wrong. In fact, your second example would actually prove him to be quite objective and keeping his personal life separate from his political one...

 

The hypocrisy calls into question whether the politician is going to apply the law equally. Both examples were of a politician advocating publicly to make certain acts illegal but violating those future laws in private. In the second example, the result of keeping the out of wedlock child secret is that HE won't have to pay the fine! But the law would force other men to make their private lives public and to pay fines.

 

IMO, if a politician is going to advocate making "morality" a law, then the politician must adhere to that morality. If morality is to be legislated so that we are obligated to follow the politician's concept of what is "moral", we can't tolerate "do as I say but not as I do". It is a sign that the new law is meant to oppress people and THAT behavior certainly falls under the job description of what a public servant is not supposed to do.

 

Sen. David Vitter would appear to satisfy that third condition.

 

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2007/07/a_blast_from_vi.php

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015233.php

 

In this case the Senator is guilty of violating his own stated standards for proper job performance. He can't apply the criteria only to Clinton. A democracy or republic cannot survive if the rule of law only applies to some people and not others. So, if Vitter says the proper response to infidelity is to remove a politician from office, then that response MUST apply to him also.

[Reaper]

The proper question should be: "is anybody here willing to tolerate a person who doesn't follow his/her own rules?"

 

One of the rights guaranteed to the public is freedom of speech, and the reason for that is so that it would be far easier to keep the government honest.

 

A politician who breaks his own laws and then tries to keep that a secret is a big no no!

[ParanoiA]

The hypocrisy calls into question whether the politician is going to apply the law equally. Both examples were of a politician advocating publicly to make certain acts illegal but violating those future laws in private.

 

To make a law and to violate one is two different acts. I might advocate not allowing marijuana to be legalized, all the while I'm smoking a joint. Maybe because I believe as long as it's illegal it won't get widespread. The fact I'm advocating a law against it does not necessarily mean I think it's wrong.

 

Hypocrisy seems to be one of those things we all get pissed about - rightly so - but has little logical application. The message is the point. Why do I care if the messenger is guilty or not - as long as he's spreading the correct message? He will be guilty whether he spreads a message or not. So there is no net loss there. In fact, since he violates his own message, he's probably in a better position to convince others - empathy with their rationale.

 

In the second example, the result of keeping the out of wedlock child secret is that HE won't have to pay the fine! But the law would force other men to make their private lives public and to pay fines.

 

How would he be able to keep it any more private than the other men you speak of? Both the hypocritical lawmaker and the out-of-wedlock fathers have equal opportunity to "hide" their indiscretion. Both are bound by the same law. If the hypocritical lawmaker can hide it, so can the other guy.

[someguy]

politicians hire people to tell them what to say publicly. By observing their actions you can better judge their true character. that way you can better discern that they are bulshitting you. But really it's human nature that most people like to gossip about people they know of and so when somebody famous does something worth gossiping about it becomes news. For some infidelity with a spouse may affect their trust of that politician, for some not, but the media should not decide, therefore we need to hear about it.

[lucaspa]

To make a law and to violate one is two different acts. I might advocate not allowing marijuana to be legalized, all the while I'm smoking a joint. Maybe because I believe as long as it's illegal it won't get widespread. The fact I'm advocating a law against it does not necessarily mean I think it's wrong.

 

But you are not in the position of power to make or enforce the law! It's about power and the abuse of it. If a person who is telling us he wants the power to enforce a behavior but isn't excercising the responsibility of adhering to the behavior to begin with, I don't want him/her in the position to have a rule that applies to me but not to him. Later on you are presuming that the law will apply to both. But let's get to that later.

 

BTW, that you are smoking a joint shows just how wrong your logic for advocating marijuana to be wrong is. Come to think about it, that's another reason to expose hypocrisy: it is an indication of faulty thinking processes and we need to know when our public officials don't think clearly -- because of the power they wield.

 

The message is the point. Why do I care if the messenger is guilty or not - as long as he's spreading the correct message?

 

There's a difference between "message" and "ideas". What we are trying to determine is whether an idea (message) is accurate or not. When you say "correct message", it means you have already decided that the message is accurate. In science, you can do that by looking at the objective universe.

 

In other areas where we don't have an absolute outside "authority", much of our decision is based on trust of the individual. In the cases I outlined we have politicians telling us what is moral and ethical. However, the politician himself is not adhering to those standards of morality. That makes me question whether the morality is accurate or not. And I need that information to make an informed decision come voting day.

 

How would he be able to keep it any more private than the other men you speak of? Both the hypocritical lawmaker and the out-of-wedlock fathers have equal opportunity to "hide" their indiscretion. Both are bound by the same law. If the hypocritical lawmaker can hide it, so can the other guy.

 

Sorry, but I'm not explaining this correctly.

 

1. A politician is telling us that men who have extramarital affairs and, particularly, get the woman pregnant are doing something illegal and deserve to be punished.

2. What's more, if we make it a law, then the behavior is so "wrong" and dangerous to society that we can use the force inherent in the police to track down these people and force them to pay.

3. BUT, the politician feels that HE is exempt from this responsibility and wrongdoing. If he did not feel this way, he wouldn't try to keep his "crime" secret.

 

I don't want a politician in office that has a disconnect between power and responsibility, particularly when he is advocating the use of force to ensure compliance for "moral" behavior.

 

As to how the politician would be able to keep it hidden once in office? By abuse of power, of course! And that is something else I don't want in a public official.

[ParanoiA]

But you are not in the position of power to make or enforce the law! It's about power and the abuse of it.

 

I guess I didn't point out I was assuming this power in my example. He's not abusing the power if he's actually passing a law that he, himself, has to worry about getting caught breaking. In other words, he's basically suspending his personal life when he walks in his office, passes laws with respect to his stated beliefs and so forth, without any regard to personal gain or loss by these laws.

 

As long as he's not excluding himself from these laws - like granting immunity to legislators, and you didn't include anything like that in your example. So he's obviously under threat of the same law himself.

 

BTW, that you are smoking a joint shows just how wrong your logic for advocating marijuana to be wrong is.

 

No, you're not getting me here, and I, you perhaps. You're attaching a value judgement to legallity. I'm saying that I can vote, as a congressman, to keep marijuana illegal without that meaning I think that marijuana is wrong. There may be other reasons why it shouldn't be legal, and if I'm truly keeping my personal life separate from my work life, then I'll vote to keep it illegal.

 

My smoking, off the job, is my own risk I take as I'm bound by the laws I pass.

 

If a person who is telling us he wants the power to enforce a behavior but isn't excercising the responsibility of adhering to the behavior to begin with, I don't want him/her in the position to have a rule that applies to me but not to him.

 

Actually, I agree. But I also admit this is a more emotional, envious position, not a logical one.

 

There's a difference between "message" and "ideas". What we are trying to determine is whether an idea (message) is accurate or not. When you say "correct message", it means you have already decided that the message is accurate. In science, you can do that by looking at the objective universe.

 

By "correct message" I meant as in the message he was elected on. So, if he's been going on and on about how gay marriage is great and was elected to office, then his message should show up in law making decisions, like legalizing it even though he's demanded his son not marry his gay lover, bribed them or something. He's a hypocrite, but he's done his job - remember we were talking about "job capacity".

 

That makes me question whether the morality is accurate or not. And I need that information to make an informed decision come voting day.

 

I would agree that someone's hypocrisy pretty much destroys their omniscience to identify morality and suggest it. But, we're talking about the capacity to fill the job position of passing laws in accordance with the things they said they stood for when they got elected. It's presumed you've identified your own morality and voted for the candidate that best represented it - or, probably more accurately, the least worst of the lot.

 

1. A politician is telling us that men who have extramarital affairs and, particularly, get the woman pregnant are doing something illegal and deserve[/b'] to be punished.

 

"Deserve" doesn't have anything to do with the law. That's the driver for it, as we consider it wrong, but his job is to pass laws consistent with what's good for the public - not with what's good for him. It doesn't matter if deep down inside he really doesn't think it's wrong, it matters that he passes the laws for the public good.

 

I don't want a politician in office that has a disconnect between power and responsibility, particularly when he is advocating the use of force to ensure compliance for "moral" behavior.

 

And I really don't either and don't vote for those people. In fact, anyone preaching morality, liberal or conservative, just rubs me the wrong way.

[Pangloss]

Yeah, but since when has a politician lying to the public been illegal?

 

Only when it takes place under sworn oath.

 

Funny side note: I got the DVD of Clinton's testimony right here in my DVD collection. If I remember correctly, it was a "free" buy from Netflix back at the time. I think the owner of that DVD rental company (the largest in the US) gave it to anybody who asked, only charging for shipping and handling (or maybe not even that; it's been a while).

[swansont]

Only when it takes place under sworn oath.

 

What responses to reporters occur under oath?

[geoguy]

98% of Canadians couldn't name the Prime Minister's wife and an equal amount his religion other that 'probably Protestant'. If he was divorced, fooled around, etc. might raise an eyebrow for a day or two but that's it.

 

Leaders in Canada, France, Norway, etc. are not better leaders or bigger scoundrels than those in the USA because they have a private life. Unfortunately Americans, so rightfully proud of their democratic tradition, have place the President and other politicians back into the 'royalty' category.

 

If the USA didn't have the highest rates of violent crime, teen pregancy, etc. among western nations then it might be said that 'the example' of leaders had some positive moral impact but I'm inclined to believe it's just too much media with too much time to fill on the airwaves.

[Pangloss]

What responses to reporters occur under oath?

 

None of which I am aware. Bill Clinton wasn't impeached because of a statement to reporters.

[bascule]

None of which I am aware. Bill Clinton wasn't impeached because of a statement to reporters.

 

The bit people seem to omit was that while Clinton was impeached, he was also acquitted. As far as the law is concerned he never committed perjury.

[Pangloss]

True enough, though not particularly relevent, IMO. But then neither was the impeachment itself. At the rate we're going impeachment is going to become pro forma.

[swansont]

None of which I am aware. Bill Clinton wasn't impeached because of a statement to reporters.

 

True, but a non-sequitur for this particular sub-thread.

[314159]

In an ideal world, all that matters is your ability to do your job, but in reality people elect politicians based heavily on their personal lives and their perception of them. Probably the reason for this is that people consider it more important that the person they elect share their ideology, or conform to their ideal of a 'good person', and will elect someone like that even if they are less competant. People like to feel that their representatives represent them, in the sense of being indicative of who they are.

[ParanoiA]

Probably the reason for this is that people consider it more important that the person they elect share their ideology, or conform to their ideal of a 'good person', and will elect someone like that even if they are less competant.

 

I think you're exactly right, although I've always wondered why we have this fascination with someone being like us. I don't want someone like me - I'm not an expert in politics. I want someone smarter and more knowledgable than me. Ideology, to a certain extent, is important to be similar, but shouldn't we consider that we're wrong? That a true professional might have a better idea than us laymen?