Why is it that high-level politicians always resign (or get pushed hard to resign) after cheating on their spouses? What's so special about politics? Imagine if every person in the world had to quit their job if they cheated on their spouse.
Public service isn't really related to marriage fidelity. In fact politicians tout exactly the opposite! It is after all a founding principal of both Canada's Charter and the US Constitution that people have a right to personal privacy. And yet it doesn't seem to apply to the people in charge of executing these documents in the public name. I think politicians have just as much of a right to hate their marriages as everybody else does.
"It's about trust." That's the jist of the argument against. If the SC Governor's wife (to use a topical example) can't even trust the dude, then neither can the electorate, right? What baloney. He wasn't elected to be a marriage counselor, or even a good husband, or even a good man for that matter. He's basically got a desk job, making policy decisions and reviewing state senate documents. Everything public about his job is about getting re-elected (i.e. the less important part). I wouldn't much care if Stephen Harper went doodling around with other women in Argentina. Have at it. Just so long as he does good work vis-a-vis his job description.
More to the bigger point: Can the United States begin to elect different kinds of people to its highest offices? How about a single person? How about a non-religious person? How about someone who has no kids? How about a vegetarian? Dennis Kucinich is a but of a nutbar, but he's the sort of guy I'd like to see elected (sans the nut bar-ness).
Public service isn't really related to marriage fidelity. In fact politicians tout exactly the opposite! It is after all a founding principal of both Canada's Charter and the US Constitution that people have a right to personal privacy. And yet it doesn't seem to apply to the people in charge of executing these documents in the public name. I think politicians have just as much of a right to hate their marriages as everybody else does.
"It's about trust." That's the jist of the argument against. If the SC Governor's wife (to use a topical example) can't even trust the dude, then neither can the electorate, right? What baloney. He wasn't elected to be a marriage counselor, or even a good husband, or even a good man for that matter. He's basically got a desk job, making policy decisions and reviewing state senate documents. Everything public about his job is about getting re-elected (i.e. the less important part). I wouldn't much care if Stephen Harper went doodling around with other women in Argentina. Have at it. Just so long as he does good work vis-a-vis his job description.
More to the bigger point: Can the United States begin to elect different kinds of people to its highest offices? How about a single person? How about a non-religious person? How about someone who has no kids? How about a vegetarian? Dennis Kucinich is a but of a nutbar, but he's the sort of guy I'd like to see elected (sans the nut bar-ness).
Comments
If someone were vegetarian, single and childless it might be more of an issue. Though, it would probably be more of an issue if the person was female than male. (though a vegetarian, single mother would probably face the harshest criticism.)