This question isn't taken from a recent article, and I don't think it's been a prominent topic in this election yet, but with the recent scandal involving former governor Eliot Spitzer, and the scandals of President Clinton and other politicians, I wanted to ask this question.
This weekend, I attended a conference in Newport Beach (not politically based). During discussions over lunch, many of my peers began a completely unrelated discussion about politics. The table was made up of predominately New York residents and the topic of conversation quickly turned to former Governor Eliot Spitzer and the recent controversy. Several people at the table said that they didn't care about his personal life, only his ability to be a good governor for the state of New York. Obviously these people recognized that prostitution is illegal and it is morally wrong to commit adultery, but they said that we put too much of an emphasis on what people either did in their past or are doing in private.
My opinion varies depending on the situation. In the case of Governor Spitzer, he was committing a crime, and therefore I think it does affect his ability to be a good leader. The Governor is expected to uphold the law and yet he was breaking the law.
At the same time, I think that President Clinton's controversy should not have become such an issue of public debate. Clinton should not have lied under oath, but he was a great president. He was one of the most popular presidents of our time, and a successful one at that. I don't agree with his decision to commit adultery, but I don't think that is any of our business.
It only becomes our business when it directly effects or alters that person's ability to perform his\her duties in office.
Even if you believe that anything a president does in office is fair game, what are your thoughts on a candidate's past?
For example, Senator Obama admitted to cocaine use as a youngster, and many were critical of this admission. I personally think that the negative experiences we have in our past can positively benefit our characters in the future.
We can't expect our candidates to have the cleanest of records. Everyone has a skeleton in their closets. I think it's better for a candidate to disclose these indiscretions rather than have them come out later. I don't judge Senator Obama for his past, and I don't judge Clinton as a president based on his adultery.
I know I rambled on, but I really want to know what everyone thinks about the importance of a president's past, and whether their private life should play a role or not in their ability to get voted into office. Do you judge a candidate based on his/her private life?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think this is a valuable post, and I agree that it's not a cut and dry issue as to whether or not a candidate deserves to be judged based on what they do in their private life. I think, like you said, it does depend on the nature of the wrongdoing and whether, for instance, it contradicts the candidate's outward image and persona. If a candidate is saying one thing and doing another, then that's wrong, and it deserves to become an issue, like with former Governor Spitzer. He claimed to be an advocate of forcefully policing criminals and busting up prostitution rings, while he himself was employing a prostitute. This is behavior that, indeed, calls his character into question. Also, breaking the law, no matter to what degree, is a step that requires an explanation to the public and close examination to see if any disciplinary action is required.
With regards to President Clinton, I think it's an embarrassing action and certainly shameful, given his abuse of power and his betrayal of his wife and daughter, but I agree in that I don't think it would have affected his ability to lead if it had been left unpunished. As for Obama's cocaine use, like with President Bush's alcohol consumption, these are issues from their pasts that the candidates promise they have stopped since that time, and the transformations they have gone through since then are all that should matter to the public.
So a candidate's private life should matter when it affects their ability to lead or contradicts their outward appearance or character, in my opinion. But when a private matter surfaces that is merely embarrassing in nature and does not hold great significance otherwise, then I don't believe it should be a deciding factor for a voter. If the action being discussed matches a pattern of serious, questionable behaviors, then yes, the private matter can reasonably come into play, but otherwise, I think the voter should make up their mind based on issues more important to their district, state, or country.
I was very excited to see your post because I was thinking a lot about candidate’s private life being almost a decisive issue in their electability. I was always very surprised why whether or not a candidate had an affair or used cocaine is more important than his or her position on political issues or past accomplishments. I doubt that Bill Clinton would lie under oath if it would not be the last resort or lesser of the two evils because publicly admitting that he had an affair would equal committing suicide. I also don’t see any reason why should we care about candidate’s sexual orientation or marital problems; instead of following scandals, public should focus more on what is going on in the country increasing their understanding of politics and economics. However, public officials (even high ranked ones) should not be exempted from punishment of they did something illegal. In the case of Eliot Spitzer, I think his major crime was not that he used prostitute’s services (I acknowledge that it is illegal, but so far, customers of prostitutes have been prosecuted only in Sweden) but rather possibility that he spent government money on it. Last week there was an editorial in the Times that discussed the issue of Americans creating “Godlike” Presidents and then being disillusioned then this President becomes human by committing one of human mistakes. This problem can easily be fixed if voters will focus their attention not on the number of wives a president had, but rather on what bills he signed.
Post a Comment