Personal Life/Political Life: Should the Twain Ever Meet?

Not only has the twain met but are intertwined with one another. A voter wants to see the human side of the candidate. If the misbehaviour is acceptable to a person then its okay. If not then it is a negative point. What might be okay to you might not be for others. Case in point drunk driving conviction might be trivial to other but definitely not to a member of 'MADD" Mothers Against Drunk Drivers" who lost a family member to this tragedy.

A voter tallies the negative and positive side of the candidate compares it with the other candidates and decides. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. What is important to most is selecting the lesser evil.

Welcome, Ricardo.

Sounds sensible - but - DO the voters have the right to know all about a candidate's private life?

Yes they do. Once you become a public figure. Except of course for the very basic such as your toilet habits and the likes.

I want to know if any of the person I am about to vote is a Satan worshipper, eats dogs, beats his/her spouse, been convicted for sexual molestation, child abuser, etc. They may argue that this has nothing to do about being a good congressman, senator or president but to me this is a window to their characters.

Ricardo_Tizon -

I think that what you are driving at is character and values. In the last few decades, we have seen people whom you would not have for coffee in your home, holding important political offices.

I think that character IS important in a politician. The whole political scene is rife with power hungry sociopaths who would sell their grandmothers to achieve and maintain the power that they crave. It is so important, especially now, to elect people who can withstand the debauched political scene, and remain steadfast in what they believe.

I think that it is important to "know" our politicians, and make judgements based on our own particular sets of values.

LOL! Well - I wonder what you do? Do you have customers, clients? If so, do they have the right to know all these things about YOU?

I think criminal convictions of a serious kind are already allowed for in law in most democracies, are they not? Perhaps we can exclude those.

Satan worshipping might be allowed for in freedom of religion!

I don't think any of us have the ability to have true insight into the characters of celebrities and politicians. We will just get whatever the media is currently focused on.

I also do not think character of a politician is relevant.

I care only about their policy. Good guys do stupid things and bad guys do great things sometimes.

I'd rather they all have to maintain stated positions on all the different policy issues. As it stands people are more interested in how a guy fondles boobs than his policy.

What they fail to consider is that unless the boob is theirs the only difference in their life will come in way of policy decisions.

As to criminal behavior etc the justice system can handle that.

I disagree. I think that the way that one operates in private life spills over into public life. If someone has lied, cheated and stolen before he has assumed office, I would bet, dollars to donuts, that that sort of behavior would continue.



Absolutely true, by why take the chance? Everything else being equal, I certainly would prefer a person of fine character running the country. The problem is, that it is very difficult to find a person of good character who can withstand the pressures of political life. I think that it is the nature of the work that attracts scoundrels.

there is no guarenteed right . The US public has, in fact, only had private life issues incorporated into their deliberation process, since ohhhh, Id say Chappaquidick days. Prior to that, dalliances, (hell, Ike was living almost a double life, and Roosevelt had a babe in a long time relationship)
These facts were considered as "dont go there" issues til about the early 70s , when after Ted Kennedys ride, and the fodder that "Mad Richard Nixon" produced for the news, it became an almost basic food group for the press.
It is too bad, UNLESS, the candidate has taken an extreme position on morals and extreme rectumtude. Then, as far as most of the voting public is concerned, its open season.
I agree that most of the morality issues are conveniently drug out at times that they have maximum impact, so then , like the Arnold issue, 9the hitler quotes not the mass gropery) i think that ,its really stoopid to EVER use the name Hitler in any conversation when one is running for any position of trust. This , should be taken into context, of the time when Arnold said it. He was a kid in his early 20s, he was allowed any opinion he wished to make, he just wasnt mature enough to make the distinction between someone who is a "good speaker" and a mass murderer being in the same corporeal frame.
As far as the groping, like Clinton (for totally different reasons) he shouldnt get a pass.
Clinton case-GOP saw that a special prosecutor was brought on to investigate the Rose Lawfirm crap and Whitewater etc. They spent gazillions and then Clinton, the Personal life jerk he is, lay the Monica issue right in trheir laps. You have to recall, the special prosecutor was paneled way before Monioca even happened. So Clinton gets a bJ and then lies on oath about it. His felony is lying under oath

arnold (allegedly) groped some women, (non consensually). His felony is battery.

I dont think it will be fatal to Arnolds election. It WILL be fatal to ARnolds admi nistration. This will not go away after the election, itll fester and cause the gOP a lot of problems in the 2004 elections. You watch.
Now, having said that I dont think we can ever go back to the days of Kennedy and earlier, when most national politicos were given a free press ride in the morals arena..There are too many media outlets that need quick sound bytes, and no analyses.

We were discussing this at a dinner party on Friday night. I agreed with the hostess who said, "Who cares about their sexual habits? Not me." We were discussing Arnold Schwarzenegger and the recent, non-criminalized sexual harassment issues. Sheesh, I don't care. I think that the sensationalizing of sexual harassment has gone way overboard and I'm mightily sick of hearing about it. Someone at the dinner said... but Arnold grabs women and puts them on his lap (while filming movies). Y'know, I may have become jaded in my old age, but I don't care. That behavior, anyway, seems mild to me and is just not an issue to base a campaign around. We're all adults. We all have the opporunity to watch much more shocking things on prime-time TV, and the basest of exploitative films, YET we apparently cringe when a man or a woman flirts with too much gusto. These things should be taken care of at the time, not brought up years later as some tantalizing bit of evidence that someone is a characterless jerk.

I do care about some things politicians have done. Criminal injury cases -- cruelty to animals -- white collar crimes. But sexual situations with consenting adults? No.

Er - my previous post was addressed to Ricardo Tizon, by the way.

I think Craven has strong points. How DO we know the "character" of a public person? Via the media generally. Ever REALLY known about something, or someone, who is the subject of a media story - much less a frenzy? How close a relationship to the "truth" did the media stuff bear? Know how most people, including me, answer that one? Most people say the media impression bore little relationship to the truth - yet, we all continue to think we can judge based on media information.

And my question remains - what gives us the right to know intimate things about people - pre-stated caveats aside - not directly relevant to the performance of their duties?

What effect does it have on American politics that candidates may feel the need to hide so much?

Who will end up standing?

Is tit for tat muck ok - as some have argued?

In Oz, for instance, we know much less intimate detail - much less that is known by the people "in the know" is printed and libel laws are much stronger (TOO strong, the media argue - possibly with good reason - I am not judging) - I wonder if we would be considered to be the worse governed for this?

It's always "taking a chance". If their character is such that they abuse public office in a substantial way they can be jailed.

Nobody has no skeletons. "Judging character" in politicians is inevitably making subjective opinions based on little data (usually whatever is making the rounds as a "scandal").

The real dangerous ones are not usually in the scandal column.

Sensationalism and lack of information precludes significant accessment of character.

It sounds good to say that character is a relevant criteria but IMO character has made little difference in politics.

Good character might even be a downside.

"Good character might even be a downside."

Wanna expand on that? Not "tough" enough?

dlowan- What is so sad to see, (which I have observed over the years) are young politicians, all full of "piss and vinegar" and idealism. Bottom line, in order to accomplish anything, one needs to be reelected. So the young politician gives in a little here, a little there, to make sure that the people who can get him elected on on his side. Then one of two things often happen. The idealistic young politician, disgusted about the compromises that he needs to make to stay in the "game", gets the hell out of politics, or is dragged deeper and deeper into the mire!

To make a difference in politics you need to be connected.

The methods through which politicians network is the greatest breeding ground for corruption.

The most honest upstanding politician on earth has little chance of changing America unless the person is a Republican or a Democrat.

Ultimately what makes the difference in America is how the political game is played. Character rarely comes into play.

Good guys and bad guys alike often have to work within the inherent limitations. Doing what's "right" is always touted and poll watching maligned.

But that is silly, in a democracy the poll watching is the method through which the people are accurately represented. Because everything is about numbers and votes, without alliances nothing is accomplished.

To forge alliances means compromise. To make a difference means to work within the existing framework. And the existing framework is such that you only make a difference with policy. Information about scandal (or it's euphemism "character") is prevalent while quantifiable data about votes is ignored.

Case in point: Trent Lott came down over a stupid comment. I was pleased, but only because he has voted along white-supremacist lines in almost every single vote he has cast. His available voting record was ignored for years. A misstatement was what brought him down. This is a good example of how misfortune plays a greater role in public evaluation of character than does intentional or honest displays of character.

And so it goes, "judging a politician's character" consistently means jumping on the bandwagon of a prefab scandal.

It means getting a chance to "judge" them only when they slip up in something stupid. The ones who successfully manage to portray themselves as "clean" can do what they want in terms of policy because the public is not paying attention. They are too distracted being voyeurs and I posit that the ones with dangerous character flaws are thought to be the "good" guys more often than not.

Edit: Phoenix caught my drift.

Phoenix - I think there is a third option - (though this is off thread) - which I observe intimately, which is sticking to your basic ideological compass, whilst working pragmatically with the possible and, indeed, as Craven describes, networking and forging sometimes odd alliances.


I agree with your "it means getting a chance to "judge" them only when they slip up in something stupid" comment, Craven - being a polly - especially one in power, means constantly living in fear of a manufactured scandal - here, they are more likely to be political than "moral" - but the feeding frenzy is the same...and an ability to be a good gladiator with the press can count for more than whether you have done something wrong, or not..

The most moral of recent US presidents was, little doubt, James Carter. His legacy is entirely post-presidential, because his administration was clueless.

as has been an admonishment for all cxandidates since the Nixon years
tell it first
tell it completely
tell it yourself

then-it goes away

What you all fail to see is, the press and various affiliated media will never 'do what is right , for rights sake' . its a business in which the news is nothing more than a marketing vehicle. Change that first

Character matters?
Of course character matters. A politician who is selfish will be less likely to put his own interests ahead of the nation's or of the higher good. What is important relative to privacy is that politicians like all people have privacy as regards who (except for their wife or husband) they are sleeping with, thinking of sleeping with, dating, etc. For instance, it wouldn't do to have male politicians judged by how many females or celebrity females they are having sex with. We wouldn't want Washington to be any more like Hollywood. Quite generally, it is not proper to publicize how many females a man is having sex with or who these females are, as though that is something people should keep score on. And if a woman politician commits adultery, that is definitely her business alone. On the other hand, it would be important to know if the candidate screws or tries to screw females in an immoral, reprehensible manner (say by grabbing a female he doesn't know well and asking her in a whisper whether she has ever experienced a man putting his tongue in her anus, as Schwarzenegger is alleged to have done) or if he spends so much time and effort trying to screw females that he neglects his wife (or would be likely to neglect his country). Similarly, if a candidate is screwed-up, that is something we should know.

What makes BBB anti-Arnold
What is it that makes me anti-Arnold? Its his megalomania compulsions. I wish psychologist Lola would join this discussion and describe the symptoms and how closely Arnold fits them.

I lived all my life in California until I moved to Albuquerque last year. I knew quite a bit about Arnold (and many other politicians) through my professional and political connections. I anticipated the Arnold sexual scandals and many other issues that are only beginning to surface. My main concern about Arnold is not his sexual behavior, it is his power compulsions that worry me.

The sexual battery behavior is criminal in nature. But it demonstrates a far deeper character flaw in Arnold. He exhibits a need to dominate, humiliate, and belittle women and, it also appears, that he abuses some men in the same way from the power position of an employer, a "star", a wealthy and connected man. Arnold showed deep disrespect to his wife, Maria, and their children because he knew these sexual battery stories would come out in the campaign. He didn't care and went ahead regardless of the hurt to his family.

Arnold gave away his need for supreme power in his comments about Hitler. He admired Hitler for his ability to attract crowds of admirers, keep them spellbound with his rhetoric, and to dominate their thinking to his point of view and his goals. The similarity in Arnold's life-long quests is dangerous.

I think Arnold, in a powerful political position, is a dangerous man. Beware of a man with a Messiah Complex. Arnold proclaims that he wants to save California. What he really wants is to be the savior to fill his own personality needs.

---BumbleBeeBoogie

The manner in which Ahnold proclaimed his candidacy on Leno's show revealed the ego-driven actor's motive for running IMHO. That he may be actually prosecuted after winning is very troublesome and it won't be just for "misleading" a judge (no matter how clever Clinton was with legal manipulations, it still revealed a character flaw that it's difficult for many to overlook -- however, those who have sinned were willing to cast stone after stone).