October 22, 2008
-
Socrates Cafe: Trust and Responsibility in Politics
Political Morality | Socrates_Cafe’s
Powered by ShareThisWhat are the proper and moral responsibilities of any political candidate?
I’m going to exchange the phrase “political candidate” here for the simpler term of “leader.” What are the proper and moral responsibilities of any leader?
A leader should strive to be the kind of leader they would want to follow if the roles were reversed. A leader who says one thing, and does something completely opposite, is a hypocrite. Such a person is not trustworthy. The proper and moral responsibilities of a good leader is not to betray the trust of the people who have selected him/her to lead. It is the foundation of their position, the only thing that qualifies them for the job.
Morals shift with each generation. However, as I read it, a moral responsibility is simply an agreement to take responsibility. Though most people try to finagle their way out of responsibility, one expects a person with morals to take responsibility for every action or lack of action. Even more so among politicians who have basically volunteered for the role by dint of their position. Yet, this is something that the last few generations of leaders have deferred. If their promises do not pan out, they are not responsible. It’s simply business as usual. The fact that so few politicians ever follow through on their campaign promises has led to widespread lack of faith in the political system in general. There is a lack of trust.
The proper actions of a leader is that they take responsibility for their failings and try in earnest to follow through on their promises. It is expected that a leader will act with decorum and propriety (yet scandals plague most politicians). A leader should be someone who is aware of their place as a role model to and representative of their followers at all times. To forget this is to disavow responsibility. A leader without responsibility is what we currently have in the White House. I think we can all agree that leaders do have a moral responsibility to not only be true to the moral compass of their followers, but to hold themselves to an even higher ideal of right action. It’s never good for the common person to lie, cheat, steal, or kill. It’s even worse for someone in a position of power to do those things (through political promises, acceptance of spurious donations, tax cuts for big business, or war). A leader is the public face his/her community shows to the world. S/he must therefore adhere to a higher ideal of conduct than the common man. A leader is both a role model and a representative. A leader should strive to represent everything right about his/her community while at the same time doing everything in his/her power to reduce and correct everything that is wrong.
Some might say that this expectation is unrealistic. I know that this is not how most leaders act. But, it is only because we do not penalize them for failing to live up to such expectations that most of our politicians are rats and our political system a sewer. We are as much at fault as our leaders for not forcing them to be better than we are. It is that we have lowered our expectations and forgiven them their lack of responsibility that we cannot trust our leaders.
Comments (9)
Personally, at this point my standards are so low I don’t even care if a leader is moral or not. I just want someone who is reasonably intelligent and genuinely wants to do what’s best for the entire country and not just gobble up power for him/herself.
Sad, huh?
I worded the question to refer to political candidates hoping to get a discussion of what is proper or acceptable during a political campaign. You don’t mention “Negative Campaigning” which seems to be more acceptable nowadays, even though it is much more difficult to make a negative stick to the other candidate unless it is absolutely true – the ubiquitous internet with its capability to instant fact check shoots down many such accusations.
What is your opinion of negative campaigning?
I’ve linked you
Hello. Where is Bushes accountability? I think he needs more negative media, because he deserves it. He failed miserably as a “leader”.
I don’t think that your expectations are unrealistic. I think that we should hold each and every past politician’s (those who are still alive) nuts to the fire for the damage they have done to this country, for the laws they have broken, and the lies they have told.
@Socrates_Cafe - Nothing turns me off to a candidate faster than negative campaigning (mudslinging). I don’t mind if a candidate points out the other’s failings so long as they also point out what was done well. I think it’s as important to admit that the opposition has done some things right as it is to highlight their mistakes. If a candidate has abused power, then I’d like to know. But if a candidate has also managed to help in some areas (even if it’s despite their worst efforts), I also want to know. I think it’s deplorable that every campaign eventually breaks down into mudslinging to the point where candidates are not only bashing each other, but people unrelated to the campaign, like the infamous Paris Hilton commercials. I’m no fan of Paris Hilton, believe me, but McCain’s commercial cheapened his already shoddy campaign. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not as fond of Obama as I was at the beginning either. He started out a little higher on the moral ground, but now he’s slinging the mud just as much as McCain. And they’ve pretty much become carbon copies of each other in their campaign promises too, though in the beginning much of what they were offering was very different.
I don’t care how acceptable negative campaigning is; I think it’s disgusting. If I were running for office, I’d like to say that I would not point out the opposition’s faults without also mentioning their successes. I would admit to my own mistakes as well. No one’s perfect. I just don’t think it’s necessary to build a bigger crap heap in order to be the best candidate. To me, the better candidate is someone who does not compromise their plans by adopting a platform idenetical to the opposition and one who debates the issues as issues rather than using them to further personal attacks. What it all boils down to is a couple of kids slapping each other around. McCain attacks Obama for his maturity when neither of them is all that mature so far as I’ve noticed.
A good candidate is sincere in their desire to serve their country and sees the opposition as a fellow citizen, not some kind of unpatriotic interloper bent on the country’s destruction. When candidates stoop to mudslinging, what they are really doing is saying “Look at my opposition. They’re not as sincere in their love of this country as I am. They are bad and if you want someone who is good, you’ll vote for me.” What that says to me is that they are not open minded enough to see the good with the bad. Their vision of the future is monochromatic. They are more interested in tearing things down than building them up (and therefore wasting taxpayers’ money). I think this country has had more than it’s share of that kind of treatment, to the point that there is very little civic pride left. We need candidates who will decide what is best for everyone, not just their own little niche group. We need candidates who treat everyone as an equal, not with some more equal than others. People talk about the left and the right and socialism and the NRA and a whole host of other things as if we aren’t all Americans. Whatever our individual beliefs, we are united as Americans by birth or nationalization and none of these other affiliations should call that into question.
Looks interesting!!!
I’ll print a copy and read it tonight when I have more time, Nice!!!
I sometimes wonder if the reaon there are scandals following every politician is because every politician is ultamately human and has failings as do each of us. Though I do agree with you that we should expect our politicians to at least try to be better than us, I think we should always allow for the fact that they are human too.
One thing I find interesting from the work Ive done as a local political strategist is that though we all claim to hate mudslinging it’s often the candidate that slings the most who wins. I guess that gets back to your own statments that it’s our own fault we have the politicians we do.
It was indeed a very good read, thank you!!!
Which of the presidential candidates, in your opinion has been the most negative? Is there any difference in the “type” of negativity? (e.g. proposed solutions/programs vs ad hominum attacks)
How well do you think the various types are working?Have negative attacks changed your mind about who you support or prefer?
It started out with McCain more negative (IMO) than Obama, but Obama has definitely caught up. Type of negativity? No, they both seem equally and irredeemably negative to me. I haven’t seen anything that seemed particularly positive. The focus now is on what the other guy has done and will do, not on their own promises or track record. The mudlslinging has made me like Obama a lot less than I did, but I still plan to vote for him. This in mainly due to McCain’s choice in running mates. Palin (IMO) is bat$hit crazy. She seriously scares me and I don’t like the idea of her being one heart attack or stroke away from the big red phone. Otherwise, I don’t see much difference between the two candidates at all. If the McCain-Palin candidacy wasn’t so disturbing, I’d probably go third party.