tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6741897648980433465.post1820428226269357761..comments2023-08-05T04:20:38.120-04:00Comments on A New Republican: Policymaker in ChiefJosh Grundlegerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01827125493183670561noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6741897648980433465.post-63336067817997897182012-01-20T19:11:27.560-05:002012-01-20T19:11:27.560-05:00Alex,
Thanks for your comment. I think you are ce...Alex,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. I think you are certainly right to point to the hypocrisy and contradictions. Part of the problem though is that these politicians use these arguments not for the moral purposes they profess but as political attacks. I think many people are subject to "such immorality," as you put it. Politicians, for better or worse, are just subject to more scrutiny and prying eyes given their public personas. It doesn't mean they are less human in their frailties or should be held to a higher standard than the guy who sits down the hall from you or me. It is not so much Gingrich I wish to defend but the principle he espoused here - even if he himself hasn't stood by it in the past. <br /><br />The truth, in my opinion, is that "morality" in a broad sense should have little role in choosing our policymakers (politicians included). Morality can become very subjective and reasonable people can disagree on what is right. For me character is less important than being able to do the job properly. (I won't go so far to dismiss it completely, because obviously some aspects of one's personality influence how they can succeed at their job). This is one reason why I am uncomfortable with the "sanctity of marriage" arguments that come from some on the right. As much as I disagree with infidelity on a personal level, it doesn't necessarily preclude someone from doing a good job as a leader. We no longer attach scarlet letters to our neighbor's lapels, we shouldn't be doing it to our politicians either.<br /><br />The best, I think, is for politicians to avoid partaking in such politicking and stick to the issues - whether they are the victim or the attacker. It may a lofty, if not idealistic, goal but I think we'd be better off for it. The electorate too, I must add, has a responsibility to diminish these ad hominem campaigns. If the voter didn't jump on these issues - infidelity, tax returns, etc. - the media and politicians would be less inclined to sensationalize them.<br /><br />JoshJosh Grundlegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01827125493183670561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6741897648980433465.post-70802780953066693782012-01-20T17:48:05.046-05:002012-01-20T17:48:05.046-05:00Josh,
Interesting thoughts here-- I certainly agr...Josh,<br /><br />Interesting thoughts here-- I certainly agree that questions and debates within the political realm should focus on policy that is relevant for the public, and not things that happen behind closed doors. <br /><br />The issue I must take with your post is about the particular question that Gingrich was asked, about his fidelity and marital arrangement. Given that he has been a longtime staunch and public advocate for respecting the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, as well as respect between a husband and wife, any question that points out his atrocious hypocrisy and double-standard becomes relevant. Gingrich led the charge against President Clinton during the Lewinsky ordeal, while he himself was having an affair. Then, the man who champions the "sanctity of marriage" asked his wife if she'd like to have an "open marriage" instead, allowing him to further violate that sanctity! <br /><br />I'll admit that Gingrich is probably smart enough to be President, but among the other qualities you suggest above should be honesty and integrity. His behavior, during his time as Speaker and now, have demonstrated an utter lack of these things, as well as even a modicum of respect for the American people, as he boldly looks us in the eye and blows off his hypocritical attitudes and dishonesty to his wife as irrelevant. If we were to live in a world where politicians weren't prone to such immorality, the questions you propose could rightly make up the only questions on the field, but as long as people like John Edwards, Mark Sanford and others claim to stand for one thing but behave in a completely contradictory manner, they deserve to be pressed on those issues.<br /><br />Alex ShaperoAlex Shaperonoreply@blogger.com