• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Politicians personal lives

ponderingturtle

Orthogonal Vector
ponderingturtle
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
54,545
When are criticisms of the personal lives of politicians with merit and when are should they not be made. I see talk about leaving politicians people agree with alone when they have personal indiscressions or personal problems. But few people seem to give that to the oposition politicians.

My take is that when a canidate makes a point about their personal lives or statements about the personal lives of others, then it is acceptable. Otherwise, I really don't care if say a politician visits prostitutes on a regular basis.
 
Wait a minute. A politician who regularly visits prostitutes is engaging in unlawful behavior, risking sexually-transmitted diseases, susceptible to blackmail, etc., and you want to pretend that shouldn't enter into our analysis of whether to vote for that candidate?
 
Brainster said:
Wait a minute. A politician who regularly visits prostitutes is engaging in unlawful behavior, risking sexually-transmitted diseases, susceptible to blackmail, etc., and you want to pretend that shouldn't enter into our analysis of whether to vote for that candidate?
Click to expand...

There is the lawful aspect, but there are places where it is legal. If it was in legal nevada brothels would you make a point of it? I will argue against the illegality of prostitution as well.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Just wondering why people think it is OK to pry into some politicians personal lives but not others.
Click to expand...

What "other" politicians is it not acceptable to pry into the personal lives of?

The media pries into the personal lives of virtually anyone even remotely newsworthy, so in that sense, it unfortunately comes with the territory.

That said, I think it should only very rarely matter in whether they get elected or not. It is only relevant if:
- They bring up the personal moral/situation of themselves or someone else (or try to portray themselves a such)
- They are doing something illegal or unethical
- They attempt to cover it up by doing something illegal or unethical

The last one may seem unfair since it's the media provoking them, but that's life. That is my biggest issue with Edwards: he's a complete dirtbag, no doubt -- cheating on his wife, and while she was seriously ill to boot. But it doesn't have much to do with his being President or not -- until he decided to go to extreme lengths to cover it up. I don't know that he broke the law, but he sure did things that are unethical.

As is often the case, the lies are more trouble than the actual issue. This type of thing should be like pulling off a band-aid to a politician: come out, admit you did it, deal with the short term pain, and move on. It's not like you're going to lower anyone's opinion of politicians. Bill Clinton was the same: everyone knew the guy was a womanizer. It wasn't a secret. Heck, it was a running joke about the guy even before the Lewinsky affair. Why even bother lying about it?
 
Generally speaking, I only really give a :rule10 if the behavior they are participating in is one the routinely denounce as a matter of policy. A prohibition advocate who is an alcoholic, for example, or an anti-gay/family values advocate who is cheating on his wife with a gay lover.
 
Upchurch said:
Generally speaking, I only really give a :rule10 if the behavior they are participating in is one the routinely denounce as a matter of policy. A prohibition advocate who is an alcoholic, for example, or an anti-gay/family values advocate who is cheating on his wife with a gay lover.
Click to expand...

And this goes beyond politicians too, right? I mean Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction was the epitome of this sort of hypocrisy.


I would add to the list that if the personal topic is related to public policy on which the politician (or candidate) has taken a stand. For example, the teen pregnancy of Palin's daughter when Palin had been in favor of abstinence only sex ed. For another, Palin made much of her choice to carry her Down Syndrome baby to term, even though it's a choice she would deny other women to have.
 
What politicians do with their personal lives can give us insight into their character. And character matters. Some of the most important decisions politicians can ever face involve issues that weren't part of their campaign, and may not have even been anticipated (see our response to 9/11, though less extreme examples are much more common). Campaign policy positions are of no use in informing us how politicians might respond. For that, personal character is one of the best guides we have. And the personal lives of politicians tell us a lot about a politician's character. We now know, for example, that John Edwards is reckless. You may not care about his fidelity to his wife, but his willingness to take great risks for purely selfish and petty reasons should give anyone pause.

That doesn't mean that everything is fair game, though. It matters that Edwards cheated on his cancer-striken wife with a woman he may have been paying illegally with campaign funds. It doesn't matter what their preferred sexual position was. Furthermore, the actions of those close to a politician or candidate do not give us much insight into the candidate themselves. So children of politicians, for example, should not receive the kind of scrutiny that the politician themselves may rightly be subjected to.
 
If the politician is lying to the public, then I don't see it as a personal, private matter any longer. So if, say, a presidential candidate has an affair with another woman, then I don't really care (although it bears mentioning that rightly or not, it does matter to a lot of voters). But if that same politician fathered a child, and then lied about it because the truth would be too inconvenient to his political ambitions- I'd certainly change my mind if I ever supported him in the first place. I'd also be furious if I found out that a campaign contribution I made in good faith was used to pay his mistress.

I think it's better if a politician like that retired to private life. Then, it really is a private matter and none of my business.
 
Ziggurat said:
What politicians do with their personal lives can give us insight into their character. And character matters. Some of the most important decisions politicians can ever face involve issues that weren't part of their campaign, and may not have even been anticipated (see our response to 9/11, though less extreme examples are much more common). Campaign policy positions are of no use in informing us how politicians might respond. For that, personal character is one of the best guides we have. And the personal lives of politicians tell us a lot about a politician's character. We now know, for example, that John Edwards is reckless. You may not care about his fidelity to his wife, but his willingness to take great risks for purely selfish and petty reasons should give anyone pause.
Click to expand...

So we need revile Churchill and Eisenhower? Hell I was hearing on the radio how Churchill knew his daughter in law was cheating on her husband who was on the front. Clearly he needs to be taken down a few pegs in peoples view as he is a man of no character.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, we need not. If you thought that was what I was saying, you missed the point entirely, and I'm actually at a bit of a loss as to why you even thought this.
Click to expand...

We know enough about their personal lives to know that they were bad leaders. They lacked character, and as such should never had been trusted in troublesome times.
 
ponderingturtle said:
We know enough about their personal lives to know that they were bad leaders. They lacked character, and as such should never had been trusted in troublesome times.
Click to expand...

What events in their personal lives are you talking about, what do you think those events told us about their character, and how did those character traits affect their leadership abilities? Because neither of them is the equivalent of John Edwards in leadership, character, or personal lives.

Sure, if you make a shallow examination of an issue, you can reach an erroneous conclusion. That's not even unique to politics and character. If you want to say something more interesting than that, you've got to, you know, say something more interesting than that.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So we need revile Churchill and Eisenhower? Hell I was hearing on the radio how Churchill knew his daughter in law was cheating on her husband who was on the front. Clearly he needs to be taken down a few pegs in peoples view as he is a man of no character.
Click to expand...

What does Churchill's daughter in law's actions have to do with Churchill's character?
 
As most politicians are into power to increase it, rather than limit government, thus reducing it, I heartily encourage all manner of discussion about them and their personal lives, to ruin them as much as is possible.
 
Beerina said:
As most politicians are into power to increase it, rather than limit government, thus reducing it, I heartily encourage all manner of discussion about them and their personal lives, to ruin them as much as is possible.
Click to expand...
:)

I'm not sure if I'd go that far, but I definitely applaud a healthy cynicism and distrust of the political animal.

Especially at the level of Congress and the presidency.

If you ignore the issue of power-lust, it's difficult to understand spending many millions of dollars to secure a job that pays something like a couple hundred thousand.

ETA: Even for the few who genuinely had noble goals for getting into politics, those who have risen to that level have had to get used to playing the games of expedience. The very best thing you can say about them is that they're willing to let the ends justify the means.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Generally speaking, I only really give a :rule10 if the behavior they are participating in is one the routinely denounce as a matter of policy. A prohibition advocate who is an alcoholic, for example, or an anti-gay/family values advocate who is cheating on his wife with a gay lover.
Click to expand...

Honestly I could care less if it did'nt affect their performance.

But, to me here's the problem. It has a chance to severely affect their performance.

For example, if the politician is married and is having an affair that in and of itself is kind of a so what, it's their life let them deal with it. But if they really dont want his/her spouse to know because of shame,finances,children or whatever then it becomes a tool to be blackmailed. Instead of voting on what's in the best interest of their constituents they are told they better vote X way or the infidelity will be leaked to the press. It at that point is no longer just their problem it's the people's problem. That's the danger to me.
 
How is believing in a young earth critical to governing? It could call a politician's judgment into question. There's also the previously mentioned issue of character and loyalty. The reasoning might go, "If he sells out his wife, despite vows in a church before God, then whose to say he won't sell out the country for other reasons?"

According to Aristotle, morality is like a muscle; we must exercise it regularly. Men, it seems, are more adept at compartmentalizing: Tony Soprano loves his kids, but he's also a vicious killer. I suspect we also over-estimate our ability to compartmentalize (e.g., even though I hate, hate, hate this employee, I'm going to be as objective as possible in his work evaluation.)

The problem is that Republicans pressed the issue way too hard with Clinton. It should never have become an impeachable offense. "But, but, he lied about it! Committed perjury! " Yeah, go **** yourself.

If it comes out while he or she is in office, then I don't see the big deal (unless he's ****ing lobbyists... or secret agents). Just say, "See, I told you," and don't re-elect the guy. Or re-elect him, whatever. People make mistakes. Ask yourself what sort of restraint you could exercise if you were rich, famous, powerful and good-looking? Further imagine your wife is Elizabeth Edwards, a woman who is apparently a ◊◊◊◊◊ two-faced bitch even more unattractive in private. Yes, Edwards is still a scumbag.

I will say this is one area where Obama should win some praise. "Well, what about Bush?" Bush never seemed to possess the same humbleness as "The One," and his restraint is probably owed to religious zealotry rather than a more internal discipline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom