So right off the bat after reading this article I felt that I agreed a lot with what Thompson had to say. I thought that it was very true that when personal lives of politicians become what the public sees that it can become very distracted by this and often don't spend as much time thinking about the really important political issues. And I also really enjoyed his emphasis on accountability in democracy because I find it to be very important.
However, the next day when I went down to the Capitol to lobby on behalf of a few environmental bills, something came to mind that made me rethink or I guess question the separation between political and personal ethics. What happened was that my brother jokingly asked the person leading a lobby training the question "how important in sex appeal in lobbying?" The guy responded saying that sadly it plays a lot more importance often times then it should and he gave an example of a certain politician. He told us of how the lobbyists he works for have started noticing a pattern with this politician. The politician is normally not a supporter of environmental bills, except when they send a lobbyist in that tall, blonde and attractive. This example really made me question the true separation of political and private lives. This just really seems undemocratic for a representative to listen to certain people over others based on a nice apprearance (something that not everyone may naturally have.) Especially in something as big as supporting certain ethics (environmental ethics) or not.
So after that I had to reread the article with that story in mind. In this article Thompson separates political and personal ethics and says that politicians can be exceptionally good at compartmentalizing their lives. However I don't think that the separation can really be as clear as he is saying. I mean he talks about some areas where the two meet and that is what got me thinking about this. The thing is, this is one person, he or she can only really have one conscience.
This reminds me of the discussions we had with John Barry and virtue ethics. When he talked about how to avoid corruption of power one must be aware and be morally vigilant of the actions he or she is taking. I mean we expect our leaders to know when they are doing right or wrong, we expect them to have a good judgment of morality. But if they are making immoral choices at home, how can we really expect them to make complete moral judgments in office? They are using the same conscience.
This also goes back to Walzer and how he said that what we really want is for our politicians to know they have guilty hands and feel guilty about it when they do things that are wrong, we want them to "have a soul." If this is the case and we do want them to have a soul, then how can we really separate the public and private? I mean if anything, when an official is caught doing something, not only is this official being unethical in the action but he is being even more unethical in assuming he could hide it from people. A politician knows that once stepping into office he is basically living his life in a fishbowl where everyone can watch, anyone taking a leadership role knows this. So if the politician would think that he or she has the power to get away with it without anyone knowing, then what makes you think that that same politician wouldn't have that attitude when it comes to politics. If this politician thinks that they can get away with the unethical thing that they did, then they must either think that they are above others in knowing what is moral (which doesn't seem beneficial to a democracy... it seems more like a power corrupted official that John Barry was talking about) or that its okay to deceive. Neither of these options for the politician would be beneficial to his or her role in office and the judgment call of that person.
By saying this, however, I am NOT saying that there aren't people who can have a separation in their lives. I think that if a politician commits a unethical act in their personal lives, that we need to keep a closer eye on this politician in his or her other decisions. Which implies that I do think that we should know the personal lives... this is something that I am still struggling with because I still agree with Thompson in saying that private affairs hoard media attention. I think maybe if the media payed attention to the ethical implication in the governmental role after and not dwell on the act itself that maybe it'd be good because the media often times blows things out of proportion.
I'm not sure though, maybe my opinion will change during class. I'm still a little unsure on the details of what this should look like.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your story about the blonde-loving representative made me think twice, too, Jenna. It made me realize that although I would normally not consider a person's sexual tendencies pertinent to his or her office, it depends on the situation. I think you are definitely on to something when you say, "one person...can only have one conscience." The issue here is integrity. As the saying goes, "Integrity is what you do when no one is watching." If an official does something behind the scenes because he or she can get away with it, that says a lot about his or her character, and it is hard to find an attribute more vital to our appraisals of politicians than character and integrity. We want people who are the same in office as on the campaign trail. We want the people who SEEM to represent us to ACTUALLY represent us.
ReplyDeleteA difficulty with this line of thought, though, is whether or not something is actually morally wrong. Jenna, you brought John Barry up and it made me think of a counter-example from our discussion with him last Tuesday. The example I'm thinking of is when he told us that he did not share his religious views when campaigning because honesty would lose him votes. Now, Dr. Barry's atheism is most certainly seen by a lot of people in Northern Ireland as immoral--sinful is probably a better term--but in this instance I would say his secrecy is justified.
What defines what is appropriate to publish and what is not? What is okay to hide and what things is it "unethical" to hide? If a person who morally thinks prostitution should be legal hires a prostitute and keeps it secret, is that unethical? Does it make a difference if that person is the Secretary of Defence or the local Sheriff? All of our definitions of morality and ethics hinge on subjective definitions of right and wrong. What may be morally outrageous enough to throw a politician completely into the "immoral" category to one person could mean nothing to (or even by admire by) another.
So, Jenna, you have inspired me to think more carefully about officials' private morality relating to their public office, but I also think many politicians are probably justified in trying to hide contentious acts from the sometimes-merciless public eye.