Infidelity and Politicians...who cares?

[Pangloss]

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

 

No, it isn't. Sworn testimony is a public statement, which is what you were discussing.

[swansont]

No, it isn't. Sworn testimony is a public statement, which is what you were discussing.

 

Why does this happen? It really annoys when you tell me what I'm discussing (this isn't the first time it's happened). Go back and reread the subthread. You're intelligent, so it can't be that reading comprehension is the issue here. "Clinton's correct response to reporters" was the context of lucaspa's post, not sworn testimony.

[Pangloss]

Why does this happen? It really annoys when you tell me what I'm discussing (this isn't the first time it's happened). Go back and reread the subthread. You're intelligent, so it can't be that reading comprehension is the issue here. I made a legitimate response to lucapsa's post, and you hen-pecked me for no reason at all.

 

No, I didn't forget to put the quote tags around that. That is my reply. If you have anything further to say on this, show a little common courtesy and take it up with me in private.

[swansont]

Why does this happen? It really annoys when you tell me what I'm discussing (this isn't the first time it's happened). Go back and reread the subthread. You're intelligent, so it can't be that reading comprehension is the issue here. I made a legitimate response to lucapsa's post, and you hen-pecked me for no reason at all.

 

No, I didn't forget to put the quote tags around that. That is my reply. If you have anything further to say on this, show a little common courtesy and take it up with me in private.

 

How about showing me some, and quote where I discussed sworn testimony. Since that's what I was supposedly talking about.

[lucaspa]

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.

 

What I see the politician doing is saying: this is wrong for you to do but OK for me to do. After all, if the politician considered it wrong at all, he would not do it!

 

No, you're not getting me here, and I, you perhaps. You're attaching a value judgement to legallity.

 

That is exactly what is happening: attaching a moral value judgement to legality. IOr rather, attaching legality to a moral judgement. For instance, we think cheating people is immoral. So we make laws saying CEO's cannot cheat stockholders (Enron).

 

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.

 

But then we have the problem with you, as a future politician, not having respect for the law. That you smoke off the job shows that you don't think you are bound by the laws you pass, because you don't think you are bound by the laws NOW. IOW, since marijuana is illegal now, we have you smoking marijuana and that shows you think some laws can be disobeyed. So, when you get into office, how do we trust you not to obey other laws -- such as those against taking bribes?

 

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".

 

Yes, he has. Partly this comes down to trying to judge the candidate's job qualifications on whether he is going to restrict MY freedom, and use the power of the state to do so. Yes, he is restricting the freedom of his son, but using his personal power. There is a huge difference between that and using the power of the state. So, if he says gay relationships are illegal but maintains a secret gay lover, then he is using the power of the state to restrict the freedom of others (while trying to secretly enjoy such freedom himself).

 

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.

 

That's one place where we are talking past each other. I'm talking beyond this to responsible use of power, restricting freedom of others while enjoying that freedom yourself, and respect for law. You have a much more limited criteria: will the politician do what he specifically promised on the campaign trail?

 

"Deserve" doesn't have anything to do with the law. That's the driver for it, as we consider it wrong,

 

You just contradicted yourself, since you did point out where "deserve" has something to do with the law -- a driver for it.

 

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.

 

Back to respect for the law. Also, you forget that HE is a member of the "public". You say it's good for "us" but, since he doesn't really think it "wrong", why is he restricting our freedom of choice? IOW, if the politician thinks the behavior doesn't affect anything important -- such as his ability to perform the job -- then why is it so damaging that there must be a law forbidding it? You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that the law is for the "public good" but the politician thinks the behavior is bad for him.

 

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.

 

Depends on what the morality is. If someone is preaching the morality of tolerance and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", I don't have a problem with that. Do you? If so, why?

[ParanoiA]

What I see the politician doing is saying: this is wrong for you to do but OK for me to do. After all, if the politician considered it wrong at all, he would not do it!

 

That's still an emotional appeal. What does that actually DO? Whether he violated the law or not (on his personal time), he still fulfilled his job capacity and passed the laws his constituency expected him to. So what does hypocrisy in that case actually DO?

 

The answer is nothing. He would have passed that law even if he wasn't a hypocrite. And he would have violated that law even if he wasn't a legislator. It just makes us mad that he says one thing and does another. An emotional appeal.

 

That you smoke off the job shows that you don't think you are bound by the laws you pass...

 

Why would I hide it and try not to get caught if I didn't think I was bound by the laws I pass? Think about it Lucaspa. If I really didn't think the law applied to me, I would smoke marijuana on the house floor and anywhere else I want. THAT would be consistent with your logic.

 

But I hide it and try not to get caught because I do think I'm bound by the laws I pass and will get punished for it. However, lack of respect, is certainly the key here.

 

Yes, he has. Partly this comes down to trying to judge the candidate's job qualifications on whether he is going to restrict MY freedom, and use the power of the state to do so. Yes, he is restricting the freedom of his son, but using his personal power. There is a huge difference between that and using the power of the state. So, if he says gay relationships are illegal but maintains a secret gay lover, then he is using the power of the state to restrict the freedom of others (while trying to secretly enjoy such freedom himself).

 

You seem to be hinging this on "restricting freedom". If he uses the state to restrict freedoms he secretly enjoys privately, then he's using the power of the state. But why is "restricting freedom" your boundary? Why is it fundamentally different than using the state for "liberating freedom" while he secretly restricts these freedoms privately? He's still saying one thing and doing another. You just prefer not being restricted. Some people prefer restriction on human behavior, and so to them would be equally atrocious behavior.

 

In both examples though, nothing changes legislatively by his personal behavior. And nothing changes personally by legislative behavior. That's perfect separation of personal life and professional duty. The only thing that makes it "matter" is that it's the same person. Functionally, they might as well be two different people. That's why I say it's an emotional issue, not a functional one.

 

That's one place where we are talking past each other. I'm talking beyond this to responsible use of power, restricting freedom of others while enjoying that freedom yourself, and respect for law. You have a much more limited criteria: will the politician do what he specifically promised on the campaign trail?

 

You are right. My criteria is limited to his professional job capacity only. The same criteria I'm judged by for my job. His personal life means nothing and is irrelevant. I use Cox cable, yet I work for AT&T. Am I a hypocrite?

 

It only matters that I perform my duties as AT&T has defined them. Even though, deep down, I'd prefer Cox cable to perform better than AT&T. No one gets to use that against me. I don't see why it should be any different for legislators. It should only matter that they perform their duties as we, the people, define them. And I don't believe their private life has any place in that definition, just like with my job.

 

Also, consider how hypocritical all of us are anyway. You don't float stop signs? Never get a bit of lead foot while in a hurry? Never fail to use your turn signal? These are traffic laws that most of us agree with, yet most of us have violated at one point or another. Did we think the law didn't apply to us? Are we all hypocrites now?

 

You can float stop signs ever now and then and still support legislation to raise the fines. It makes you a good legislator, because you separate your personal life from your professional one.

 

You just contradicted yourself, since you did point out where "deserve" has something to do with the law -- a driver for it.

 

No, no. Think about this first. I'm saying the driver, the momentum, the motivation for such a law is not part of the law. It's because people think someone "deserves" punishment that they are motivated to pass laws. But the concept of "deserves" is not present IN the law.

 

Therefore, the law is not a value judgement, it's a violation judgement. I can pass laws to create or promote a desired outcome - nothing to do with any value judgement. If I want to see more red cars on the road, I could pass laws to restrict the use of other colors, while I personally own a black car. That's using law to create a desired outcome, not pass a value judgement.

 

(Specifically, that example is an abuse of power and the majority rule, but I think you get my point...)

 

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that the law is for the "public good" but the politician thinks the behavior is bad for him.

 

Certainly you can. He could have low regard for himself, while having the utmost respect for the rest of the public. Maybe he lost his wife and now he doesn't care about himself and wants to die. So, he passes laws to keep drugs illegal, while he doses himself nightly, slowly killing himself. He's still performing his job duties, separate from his personal life.

 

Depends on what the morality is. If someone is preaching the morality of tolerance and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", I don't have a problem with that. Do you? If so, why?

 

Well, I'm a little conflicted, honestly. On the one hand, I don't like morality being a function in government. It's not up to the government to decide what is moral, what is not, and we should not be electing people who want to do so. No one should be looking to the government to figure out what's ethical, legitimate behavior - nothing.

 

On the other hand, laws are derived, ultimately, from some kind of moral code. And I don't think there's any way out of that.

 

For example, I believe in the basic concept of freedom to do anything you want as long as you don't directly harm the person or property of another. But even that is a moral code. And when you start defining what is "harm" and what is property, person and all that - you end up with a moral structure of some kind.

 

So, all that to say, I don't know....