I have to agree with everything Thompson said in his article. I don't feel that the media or citizens really have any use exposing or knowing personal activity that has nothing to do with how they act and preform in the political sphere. I only wonder if his thoughts, which are well thought out and rational, are largely forgotten and stretched far to thin in practical politics. Look at the John Edwards cheating scandal and how that was reported after he was no longer a factor in the election, Barack Obama's loose association with Bill Ayers, or Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter. These were major issues during the last election. Even after the Bill Ayers ordeal was basically found to be bunk, Republicans still used it to fuel attack ads. The fact that these stories could be justified by the unity of character by many people is a big annoyance for me and I wish registered voters and media outlets were somehow bound by the arguments Thomas makes.
Just to add a point of argument I also wonder if we need to actually cross the line and forget about the relevance of personal life to public office. What if Machiavelli's ideal prince comes to power? Don't we have to be on the lookout to make sure we do not become subject to a tyrannical rule by someone bent on maintaining power? Or what if we assume that dirty hands are inevitable shouldn't we be extremely concerned and crossover the line of political relevance to be aware of dirty hands? Wouldn't it also be a way to add more realism to political actors so we do not demand that our politicians should be saints? I still have to say no because I agree with Thompson that needless prodding into politically unrelated private ethics degrades democratic accountability.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with you, Nik, that some of the tactics used during the presidential campaigns were immoral. I also believe that exploiting these types of unfounded and irrelevent rumors in order to get more votes cheapens the political system. Unfortunately, I also think these tactics can be very effective. The suggestion that Barack Obama is a Muslim, for instance, while completely fabricated and theoretically irrelevent to his qualifications for president, was very successful in scaring a relatively large group of the population. I think it is a lot easier to spread sensational lies that people hear and pass on quickly than to defend one's candidacy with reasonable defense of his or her positions on issues. I think that, while most people would admit that such ads are immoral, many people would think the election of their favorite candidate--whose election, they would argue, would greatly help the country as a whole--would justify these means. Because both sides of any issue would be likely to use this same justification I see this as a moral issue that will forever plague United States politics.
ReplyDelete