Political Ruminations

[Guest]

Warning: Long Post Ahead

I was watching a program on CNN today and heard several things that made my head spin. The crux of this thread IMO, is moral relativism vs. absolute truths in the context of American political culture. The program on CNN had several people discussing the whole Chandra Levy/Conditt affair. One woman was espousing traditional Judeo-Christian morals and saying that simply because Conditt admitted to having an extramarital affair that he should resign from office.

The woman continuously quoted past presidents and famous American political thinkers. She stated that individuals in this capacity should do what is right, instead of what is wrong, in their private lives. If they do not make the correct decisions in their private lives then this immorality of lies and deception will carry over into their public duties. In other words, if they lie and cheat in their private lives, they will lie and cheat while performing the tasks of their job. She said that adultery was absolutely a wrong. When others discussed how absurd it was to bring these private morals to the table, she said that this was typical moral relativism at work. What was so ironic, was the majority of individuals she quoted had affairs themselves, including Thomas Jefferson.

I must admit, I'm a relativist. Regarding adultery, I'm not sure it's such a black and white issue. I may be flamed for saying this but I do not believe that adultery is categorically a wrong, per se. I guess I just see numerous shades of gray in this world and not simply black and white. I feel that only a miniscule number of things, if any at all, are truly issues of black and white.

As for adultery in a political context, I believe it is ridiculous to hold our politicians to these standards. First, most politicians are hammered if they are divorced. It has not been acceptable in the past for a divorced politician to gain much political clout/power. Although this trend is changing, a politician who has a stable marriage and "normal" nuclear family homelife has a far greater chance of succeeding in the political climate. Therefore, many politicians I believe stay married long after the average American citizen would have a divorce. Noting this need for politicians to have the so-called nuclear family, I find it odd that we are so shocked at how many politicians have affairs. I don't have any numbers in front of me, but I have read at times that 60% of married men and just a slightly lower percentage of women have had an adulterous affair at one time in their life. Yet even though the average American has most likely cheated, it is categorically wrong for a politician to cheat. Why is that? I think it's rather hypocritical of us to expect more from our politicians than we expect from ourselves.

Additionally, I do not believe that extramarital affairs in any way, shape or form, inhibit the politician's abilities to carry out their jobs. During the Clinton scandal, numerous people said that it wasn't the affair they were upset about, it was the fact that he lied. But I ask you this in all sincerity. How many of you, how many people in the American populous would forego lying if the truth might cost them their career/livelihood, their marriage, the respect and trust of their children and everything else they held dear. I know that I would lie to avoid such consequences. I dare say that many Americans, if put in that situation, would tell the truth. If you were to tell the truth I don't know if you are just incredibly stupid or just overly sanctimonious.

Why should politicians get so much grief over cheating on their spouse? Why is this such a hot topic in American politics? Many of our forefathers, the hands and minds that shaped our political culture, were adulterers. Most of the famous individuals that we admire for their work and contribution to history, politics, economics and art were adulterers. I simply don't understand why this is such a big issue with the media and the American people.

People don't just cheat for the sake of cheating. Many people cheat because of substantials reasons. Some marriages are even open to having sex with other individuals.

During this television program the hypocrisy astounded me. The same individuals who will crucify the morals of a politican for cheating, the so called individuals who believe in absolute truths, are the same who espouse political beliefs that I find completely inconsisent with moral absolutism. The other commentators on the program commented on just this thing.

Those who talk about the lying, the cheating, the immorality of our political leaders usually discuss this on a godly level. They quote the commandments they quote all sorts of passages from the Bible. They say that moral relativism is simply an excuse to condone various societal practices. But at the same time, these are the people who try to justify their political beliefs based upon a selfishness that is not espoused in the Bible. Instead of focusing on the fact that 1 in 6 children in the United States is below the poverty line or that women and children across this globe are being brutally murdered and killed, we should focus on the private morality of one individual.

Maybe it's just me, but I see that the immorality that dramatically alters the lives of so many individuals is a bit more important than which dick was in which pussy over the weekend. I am on so many tangents right now, feel free to answer this thread in any way you like because there are about a million ways it could go. Maybe this was too long and no one will answer.


I guess it boils down to the inconsistencies I find in Todd's political philosophy. This politician is ungodly because he cheats but the government/tool of mortal man can kill another individual. An individual should follow the 10 commandments about adultery yet the United States should not use our resources to help individuals in other nations who are dying, who are living horrid lives, because that simply isn't our concern. Let's discuss godly morals when we are talking about sex but let's forget god and focus on man-driven capitalism and our own self-interest when discussing programs to help the poor, the homeless, those without medical care in this country.

For those of you into godless politics on either side of the spectrum, this probably doesn't interest you. In fact your political beliefs are probably far more consistent than mine. But for those of you who focus on morals and god in your political decisions, help me understand these inconsistencies. How do you justify them to yourselves?

How can these evangelical Christians and politicians (like Trent Lott) damn Conditt, Clinton, Hart and yet praise Gingrich (the man who served his wife dying of cancer divorce papers).

Moral relativism makes you look more skeptically at the issue. There are shades of gray in everything. Keep your absolute truths out of politics. For most in this country don't even believe these so-called absolute truths of the Bible.

 

[lavender]

 

[Texan]

Hello lavender

Lavender, I am not taking issue with your post. They were presented as your own observations and opinions on some complex issues, and are not debatable in my mind. Let me just give you a couple of different ways that some other people might view the same situations you described.

You said; “As for adultery in a political context, I believe it is ridiculous to hold our politicians to these standards.”

Lavender, when two people marry, they usually make vows of fidelity to each other. (If there is no vow of fidelity, I don’t believe there is any adultery.) When one of the two has an affair, they have shown their willingness to forsake their vows in exchange for self-gratification. By their action, they have demonstrated that their solemn vow has no value. Many people, I think understandably, believe that if a politician is willing to break the vows he has made to the person that is “closest” to him, then surely, his oath of office has even less meaning to him. If a politician cannot be trusted by his wife, then how can he be trusted by voters he doesn’t even know.

You said, “During the Clinton scandal, numerous people said that it wasn't the affair they were upset about, it was the fact that he lied. But I ask you this in all sincerity. How many of you, how many people in the American populous would forego lying if the truth might cost them their career/livelihood, their marriage, the respect and trust of their children and everything else they held dear. I know that I would lie to avoid such consequences.”

Lavender, if a man has so much to loose, doesn’t he have to be either incredibly stupid or extremely selfish to risk EVERYTHING for temporary sexual gratification? If 60% of “average citizens” have had affairs, then 40% have not. Don’t we want those who represent us and make our laws to be from at least the top half of our population when it comes to intelligence and selflessness? You said, you would lie to avoid the consequences of an affair. I think many people would. The problem is that anyone with a little intelligence knows in advance, that lies will be NECESSARY to cover up an affair. Shouldn’t we expect our political leaders to be smart enough to envision the potential consequences of an affair and have the strength of character to resist the temptation?

You said; “An individual should follow the 10 commandments about adultery yet the United States should not use our resources to help individuals in other nations who are dying, who are living horrid lives, because that simply isn't our concern. Let's discuss godly morals when we are talking about sex but let's forget god and focus on man-driven capitalism and our own self-interest when discussing programs to help the poor, the homeless, those without medical care in this country.”

Lavender, many people, myself included, do not see this as a moral question at all. Many people who believe our government has no business trying to solve the world’s problems, give sacrificially from what is left after taxes of our hard earned incomes, through churches and charities to help people in need all over the world. The moral “inconsistency” you see, is really a difference in the role different people see for government. Many Christian churches teach their followers to give ten percent of their incomes to the church. Many Christians (and others) give much more through other charities and service organizations. Just because a person doesn’t believe charity is a role for government, does not mean that person is heartless.

My observation of your post is this. You are more forgiving of the “sins” of liberal politicians because you believe they share your views of the role of government in solving the obvious needs of the poor and needy in society. You can’t understand how Christians can be so condemning of liberal politicians and at the same time so uncaring for the world’s needy. I believe Christians are even more caring than liberals about the needs of the poor, but they just don’t see government as the best vehicle for meeting those needs.

Consider this. If a person was giving sacrificially to the poor through their church (or through a charity), and the government was forcing them to give even more from their earned wages to the poor through their taxes, who should the person be complaining to, the church or the government?

 

[Cherry]

I couldn't agree more...

That was wonderful Lavy ... and I couldn't agree with you more.

I also believe that Trent Lott's condemnation, and calling for the resignation of Rep. Gary Condit, is more politically motivated than it is for moral reasons ... how foolish do these bible thumpers believe the American populace to be? I find the hypocritical condemnations so much more repugnant than the actual charge. When will they ever learn?

You would think that after the last election, they would realize that invasion of privacy and personal massacre for partisan purposes is obvious and petty. The self-serving moralizing is laughable when some of the loudest antagonizers are guilty of the same or much worse.

 

[Mischka]

I think it's rather hypocritical of us to expect more from our politicians than we expect from ourselves.

Additionally, I do not believe that extramarital affairs in any way, shape or form, inhibit the politician's abilities to carry out their jobs.

I disagree with both statements.

We elect what we hope to be the best among us. With that honor comes the burden of strict scrutiny of their character, including their personal commitments. Elected officials live their lives in the public eye, and I expect them to set an exemplary model, not pander to the lowest (or even average) denominator.

I also find it anachronistic to cite past presidential affairs. We have Founding Fathers - and not Mothers - because women have only recently been viewed as more than fragile playthings and possessions. Extramarital affairs may have been commonplace, and even expected, in Jefferson's time (and even FDR's time), but that does not excuse current politicians. We pride ourselves on our progress; that should include treating a spouse as an equal and not publicly humiliating her with the news of an affair.

As for an affair inhibiting a politician's abilities, I would argue that in the United States it definitely does. How much time and energy did Clinton have to devote to concealing his affair with Lewinsky? How often was he distracted by planning their next meeting when he should have been thinking of his official duties? This may be a high profile example, and lower elected officials obviously do not have as much riding on their decisions, but the effect is still there. Concealing an affair takes time and energy, and that has to be substracted from some other area of the person's life.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Yes I like the arument, if you lie to the most important person in your life, then what chance do your constituents have.

Also, there was a human misiing and he obstructed justice.

Get a rope.


[CARVILLE: Ignore the damn fool. He's drinking that hooch again!]

 

[WriterDom]

Condit could have anal sex with a pig and it wouldn't bother me. He could find some pagan to perform a marriage ceremony with the pig and I wouldn't care as long as the pig didn't get his medical benefits. It's his actions after the story broke that has all but the liberalist cretins upset. And you wonder why you lost the last election. Perhaps they'll be one critical voice from the left before this is over. Feigned morality is a good way to earn a VP nod.

 

[morninggirl5]

A man and woman are standing facing a man dressed in black. Behind them are their families, friends, members of their community. The man makes promises based on the laws of the community represented and before God.

Later he breaks those promises.













Which was it, a wedding where he vowed to be faithful or an inauguration where he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land?

If your wedding vows aren't significant enough to keep then what promise is?

One other thought -- If it's an open marriage, is it even a marriage?

 

[Thomas Paine]

Tex, I'm going to astound you and agree with a substantial part of what you said. I have never been able to understand why Bill Clinton, with all his intelligence and political savvy, couldn't see that his behavior, official and otherwise, would be under the most powerful of microscopes during his presidency. Hell, his enemies made up enough scandal about him without his creating any of his own. I was only ever disappointed more by one politician than I was by Clinton's shameful inability to keep his dick in his pants, and that was Nixon's inability to keep his out of our collective ass.

I do believe that people's sexual relationships are their own business, but there is a lot of merit to Mischka's argument that we ought to be able to expect better from people who hold high office. However, they are people, with weaknesses and insecurities just like everybody else. It's an almost unanswerable question. Guess that makes me a moral relativist, huh?

I do think, though, that what's good for the goose ought to apply to Republicans, too, so where's the conservative outrage at anti-crime poster boy, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani? Giuliani, a now-diminished player on the national scene, not only fucks around on his wife but flaunts it in front of the public and has made his decidedly icky love triangle a subject of national news. C'mon, fellas, take a few whacks at Rudy. After all, he gave you Senator Clinton.

As far as Gary Condit goes, sex ain't the issue. I don't get all the frothing at the mouth on the Right, because, other than a few decidedly halfhearted, pro forma comments from his House colleagues, nobody's defending this guy. He's at best a scumbag and at worst a murderer and he deserves the disgrace that's being heaped on him.

Oh, and as to Mr. WriterDom -- "liberalist cretin?" Come now. When I first started reading this board, although I disagreed with almost everything you said, I thought you at least presented your arguments in a rational, intelligent manner. Now I'm beginning to think you're just Todd who can type.

 

[p_p_man]

Ah but...

Posted by Texan:

"Lavender, if a man has so much to loose, doesn’t he have to be either incredibly stupid or extremely selfish to risk EVERYTHING for temporary sexual gratification"


...when the sap's rising to hell with thinking about the consequences. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do and...

'A man's a man for all that'

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: Ah but...

Posted by Texan:

"Lavender, if a man has so much to loose, doesn’t he have to be either incredibly stupid or extremely selfish to risk EVERYTHING for temporary sexual gratification"


...when the sap's rising to hell with thinking about the consequences. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do and...

'A man's a man for all that'

Boys will be boys ceases being a valid arguement when they're four and understand the concept of cause and effect.

 

[p_p_man]

You mean pregnancy?

...I think most men understand the cause and effect of that alright

 

[morninggirl5]

Obviously not. Seems to get lost somewhere in the same corner of their mind as their wedding vows.

 

[p_p_man]

Tell that to Monica and to...

various married women I've had affairs with

 

[morninggirl5]

Sure, they're just as much a part of the problem.

And the parents that teach their daughters that having an affair with a married man is okay as long as he's rich or powerful and they "get" something out of it.

 

[Cherry]

Consider, too...

There was some estrangement in Condit's marriage (from what I've read) ... a wife that was living in California most of the time, with a mention of her being "sickly" (read here: not performing her wifely duties).

Not that I'm making excuses for his behavior ... but they were HIS choices to make ... THEIR business, not the public's ... who are we to judge what reasons caused him to make his decisions? We have no idea what the status of their marital sexual relations involve. For every infidelity in anyone's marriage, there is a thought process and decision ... based on consequences vs. needs. In that respect, he is no different than any other man or woman who has chosen the risk of an affair over loyalty to a spouse.

It's simplistic to expect that those in high places should "set an exemplory model" or the analogy that a man who would cheat on his wife would cheat on his constituents ... leaders are also HUMAN ... they aren't SAINTS. In fact, powerful men usually have powerful libidos to match ... and are also subject to enormous temptations by power-fascinated groupies. Some of the ugliest, old frogs on The Hill have beautiful playmates ... government leaders are PRIME for infidelities. simply because of their status (in all countries). There are too many examples of this to believe otherwise ... you're naive if you think that men in high places should set examples by their private behavior.

I'm sure that if you dug a little deeper into some of your own heroes of politics, you will find that they too have a dalliance to hide. What has changed now is that it has become a political tool to discredit opponents ... as well as, the disrespect from the media to find it newsworthy.

 

[Mischka]

Re: Consider, too...

...you're naive if you think that men in high places should set examples by their private behavior.

"Justice, like health, depends upon the presence of a natural order governing the soul in the relation of its parts and in the conduct of the whole."

Terribly naive notion to your ears, I'm sure.

 

[morninggirl5]

Re: Consider, too...

There was some estrangement in Condit's marriage (from what I've read) ... a wife that was living in California most of the time, with a mention of her being "sickly" (read here: not performing her wifely duties).

Not that I'm making excuses for his behavior

But that's what it is an excuse. Those vows say for better or worse, not for better or until it's not convenient for me anymore. If you're not going to uphold them, don't make them.

It's simplistic to expect that those in high places should "set an exemplory model" or the analogy that a man who would cheat on his wife would cheat on his constituents ... leaders are also HUMAN ... they aren't SAINTS. In fact, powerful men usually have powerful libidos to match ... and are also subject to enormous temptations by power-fascinated groupies. Some of the ugliest, old frogs on The Hill have beautiful playmates ... government leaders are PRIME for infidelities. simply because of their status (in all countries). There are too many examples of this to believe otherwise ... you're naive if you think that men in high places should set examples by their private behavior.

I hold men and women in high places to exactly the same standards I hold every other man or woman. Honesty, loyalty, and integrity are still values that we should all strive to exhibit. I don't care how powerful their libido, the temptations, or their status -- You make a vow or an oath, you uphold it period, end of discussion, just do it.

I'm sure that if you dug a little deeper into some of your own heroes of politics, you will find that they too have a dalliance to hide. What has changed now is that it has become a political tool to discredit opponents ... as well as, the disrespect from the media to find it newsworthy.

The everybody is doing it rationalization. Would you accept this from your child? I doubt it. Just because everyone is doing it, doesn't make it right. The media has gone too far in some respects, but there is no turning back the clock. Personal ethics, and that's really what we're talking about here, are an important consideration when choosing leaders. Bouncing checks can be used to discredit someone's testimony in court, indicating dishonesty. Adultery demonstrates dishonesty just as clearly.

 

[p_p_man]

thank you.

Sure, they're just as much a part of the problem.

And the parents that teach their daughters that having an affair with a married man is okay as long as he's rich or powerful and they "get" something out of it.

the first unbiased answer I've seen.

There are too many women around who see sex as a way of "improving" themselves. And when things go wrong, bingo, it suddenly the man's fault!

 

[Cherry]

HA! Don't be so sure...

"Justice, like health, depends upon the presence of a natural order governing the soul in the relation of its parts and in the conduct of the whole."

Terribly naive notion to your ears, I'm sure.

Simply open for a more realistic interpretation of modern "conduct".

... but then again, the bible-thumping, holier-than-thou critics just don't understand that. They prefer instead to get up on their high bully pulpits to quote ancient scriptures, judge and condemn others with standards that they don't reflect themselves... not to mention, that the ulterior motives of some of these unordained preachers have nothing to do with morals or conduct.

Surprisingly, some sanctimonious attitude is even displayed on this thread. I accept that people are entitled to their own views and opinions, as I am ... without personal retort, I'm sure.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: HA! Don't be so sure...

Surprisingly, some sanctimonious attitude is even displayed on this thread.

I agree but I'm not particularly surprised...

 

[Laurel]

I do think, though, that what's good for the goose ought to apply to Republicans, too, so where's the conservative outrage at anti-crime poster boy, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani? Giuliani, a now-diminished player on the national scene, not only fucks around on his wife but flaunts it in front of the public and has made his decidedly icky love triangle a subject of national news. C'mon, fellas, take a few whacks at Rudy. After all, he gave you Senator Clinton.

That's what I don't understand - the hypocrisy. Constant yammering about Clinton's perjury regarding Monica, then nothing but excuses when Bush blatantly lies regarding vandalism to the White House (and he did lie - either to the American people or to the Federal government). Clinton's a morally bankrupt individual, yet Gingrich and Bob Barr and all the other right-wing womanizers & cheaters are welcomed with open arms.

If it were really a moral issue - if I honestly believed that those on the right gave half a fig about adultery and lying - I might listen to their arguments. I do think there's some merit to the idea that we're electing them to represent US, and that they should represent us in the best light possible. But as it is, the actions of the right-wing do not lead me to believe that they give a fat fuck about "morality". I see it as nothing but blatant attempts to discredit "the other side" at any cost. It's all bullshit.

If it were innocuous bullshit, I wouldn't care. But it's dangerous bullshit. These investigations and all the focus on whos-fucking-who, in the end, hurts all of us, because it takes the focus OFF the issues and onto things that have no bearing on the way this nation is governed.

People, all this information about politician's personal lives is not in the press by accident. Affairs and scandals that would we would never know about are being intentionally leaked to newspapers and television. The effect of this is that we begin to see our leaders as jokes. This character assassination shit is BAD for America. It's demoralizing. It makes us look like fools to the rest of the world. When they tell Clinton blowjob jokes or Dubyah cocaine jokes, they aren't laughing at those men - they're laughing at US.

I would be ecstatic if we as a country could get off the subject of who's fucking who with what and back on the issues that affect MY life. Condit - who gives a fuck? I never liked the guy. I'm not stupid enough to blindly defend any old a-hole who has a (D) next to his name. Ted Kennedy - who cares? Yep, he fucked up big time. There are plenty of Republicans who have cheated on their wives, lied, murdered, and extorted. We can all sit around and have a big old gossip session like a bunch of old hens over whose crimes were worse and who fucked more interns...or we could start talking about WTF we're going to do about the environment. About social security. About our school systems. About China. About our national defense. About the shit that really MEANS something. It's our choice.

I wish I had more confidence that we as a nation would make the right one, but I have a feeling we're up for another umpty-odd years of "He's a murder!" "He's a liar" "Clinton blowjob!" "Nixon!".

It's a shame.

 

[Cherry]

You've missed my point...

I hold men and women in high places to exactly the same standards I hold every other man or woman. Honesty, loyalty, and integrity are still values that we should all strive to exhibit. I don't care how powerful their libido, the temptations, or their status -- You make a vow or an oath, you uphold it period, end of discussion, just do it.

I'm not condoning adultery ... but rather the judgment of others concerning a matter between husband and wife.

Do you actually judge yourself, friends and family with this same belief? Is there no room for understanding that perhaps there are reasons that people do what they do because of other failures in their marriage? If someone you loved immensely shared a problem with you, saying that they succumbed to temptation after suffering continuous sexual rejection in their marriage, would you respond likewise?

I'm not being critical of your values, my apologies if it seems that way ... just trying to understand the strength of your argument.

 

[Weevil]

I wish I had more confidence that we as a nation would make the right one, but I have a feeling we're up for another umpty-odd years of "He's a murder!" "He's a liar" "Clinton blowjob!" "Nixon!".

It's a shame.

I agree with 99% of your musings, O fearless Leader, except that I think it's kind of unfair to lump Nixon in with the mudslinging. Nixon committed serious, serious crimes in office(and was anti-semetic) and as such just bringing him up isn't partisan mudslinging but an example of abuse of power to a ridiculous degree.

 

[Laurel]

LOL! I was just giving examples of the name-calling and name-dropping that drives me crazy in "political" arguments.

Someone starts a "political" thread on a specific issue. Within 5 posts, someone throws in Nixon or Clinton (again, not saying they are interchangeable, simply relating what I've seen on the Net and elsewhere) or Condit or blahblah and within 10 posts someone else yells "Commie!" or "Fascist!" and then it's all name-calling and rah rah team bullshit that has nothing to do with the original issue.

Bugs the hell out of me. It's not just here - it's everywhere. On political BB's it's just as bad (though some are better than others).

To me, a discussion of who does what drugs and who fucks who is not a "political" discussion - to me, that's gossiping. Political discussions generally involve POLITICS. If all that's being discussed is a person's private life, THAT'S gossip. Just because the people being discussed happen to be politicians does not make it a political discussion.

I do think that it's bad form for a politician's private life to interfere with his job. If he knocks up some intern and she gets pissed and runs to the media, that's his fuck-up. But if he's having a discreet affair and the "other side" spends millions of dollars digging it up to discredit him, I have more sympathy for him (though he still fucked up). However, if he smoked pot twenty years previous, or cheated on his wife thirty years ago (and they as a couple have worked it out since) and the "other side" digs that up for the press to print as front page news, I'm not sure who's served by that. How does that improve government? How does that improve us as citizens?

I gotta get off this thread or there won't be any new stories for tomorrow, lol...