The
Other Side of the Coin – When the Shoe Fits
I'm confident that nearly everyone would agree: unsubstantiated name calling is bad. It is
dishonest and distracts from the real issues. But what if the apple really is rotten? What
if a politician is a thief, a scoundrel, even a traitor? Unless the voters know about such things
they will not be able to vote wisely. Evidence-based, correct
description of politicians is not only good,
it is required if we are to avoid demagogues and keep our freedom. There is a big
difference between unsubstantiated name calling and pointing out
verified problems. If a politician has a track record of lies and broken promises, voters should know about it.
That is true whether those lies and broken promises were to the public or
confined to family and friends.
What should we think of politicians
who cheat on their wives, people like Anthony
Weiner, Newt
Gingrich, Mark
Sanford, or John
Edwards? Does their private behavior bear on fitness for office? Years ago I
saw a quiz intended to measure people's attitudes toward some work
issues and help them understand the importance of having the “correct”
attitudes. One question asked, “If you found out that your boss was having an extramarital
affair, would you think less of him as a boss?” The “right”
answer was that no, that should not change
how you regard him. His personal life has nothing
to do with his work
life.
That “right”
answer is nonsense.
To believe that a person can have
high integrity
at work
while lacking integrity
in personal life is to believe that the person is split into two different characters.
It just doesn't happen. If someone cheats on his spouse and not on his employer
there is a simple reason: at present
he finds it attractive, and of acceptable risk
to cheat on his spouse but not on his employer.
What will happen when he finds it attractive and of acceptable risk
to cheat his employer
(or the country)? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to answer that
question.[1]
Integrity is not situation-dependent. The person who is honest only when
honesty is convenient, or when dishonesty is dangerous,
lacks integrity.
When the situation changes,
he will cheat. That is true in family life, in business,
and in government.
Newt
Gingrich, for example, cheated on at least two wives, eventually divorcing
both.[2] He then
talked of Christian forgiveness,
using that to try to convince people that they should support him. As a
Christian I believe in repentance and forgiveness,
but so what? The issue is trust, not forgiveness.
In fact, I am in no position to forgive Gingrich; he did not wrong me. His
ex-wives and his children
must deal with that. For voters the issue is trust;
and trust
must be earned.
In fact while Christian scripture repeatedly commands us to forgive, I do not
know of any scriptural admonition to trust
the offender. Jesus even instructed his disciples to be “wise as serpents.”[3] Surely such wisdom
would include trusting only those who are trustworthy.
In our romantic lives, business,
or politics we must require that people be trustworthy. That integrity
should be manifest by actions, not just words.
The politician who fails to demonstrate integrity
by his actions
should be rejected – be those actions
public or private.
We must seek the truth about our politicians. If they are liars and
cheaters, we should know that and not vote for them. If they are falsely
accused, we should also know that and not hold the accusations against them. And of course
we should refrain from unsubstantiated name calling ourselves.
[1] There are a few people who agree to “open marriages”
wherein each allows the other as many affairs as he or she wants. However such
marriages are, as far as I can tell, officially unheard of among politicians so
they need not concern us here.
No comments:
Post a Comment