How much of a Politicians personal life should be public?

Mr. T · Post by **Mr. T** » 2007-07-07 12:23pm

Each sides argument usually boils down to something like this:

Side 1) If the media subjects Politicians personal lives to extreme scrutiny, it means that potentially undesireable people that have done things or made choices in their personal lives that most citizens disagree with are prevented from gaining power. Presumably by examining Politicians personal lives and personal faults, it tells us something about their suitability to serve the publics interest.

Side 2) The other side typically argues that forcing Politicians personal lives to undergo so much scrutiny discourages qualified and capable people from running for office as they don't want their past and their present personal life to be under the publics microscope. Moreover, giving such detailed examination of public figures personal lives distracts people from the most important issues: His or her stance on the issues, and their record for helping (or harming) their constituents.

I tend to side more with Side 2. I personally think that anything illegal that a politician does or has done should be made public. The Mark Foley's etc. of our world definitely should have their criminal acts made public, especially when they use their power to commit said acts. However I think generally the media frenzies over politicans personal lvies far too often rather then reporting the issues and that voters in general are too stupid to let go of disagreements they have with a politicians personal life and actually look at what that person is proposing.

Using a few Canadian examples, I recall one politician whom it was "revealed" had a daughter that worked as a stripper in a Montreal club, he had to make a statement to the media saying how he knew of this and that although he was ashamed he still loved her. Did this really need to be made public? Much less require the guy to make a statement?

Another example, although my memory is a bit hazy, is when former Ontario Premier Mike Harris was considering running to lead the national Conservative party and the media began subjecting him and his girlfriend (whom was going through a divorce I believe) to scrutiny and among other things it was reported that the proceedings revealed his girlfiend "spent alot of money on lingerie". Harris soon after declined to run, and I believe he cited the scrutiny as a reason.

Did the public have a right to know of Bill Clinton's womanizing and the whole Lewinsky affair for that matter?

Moreoever, what about George Bush's coke habit or Clinton's and Gore's smoking marijuana or Laura Bush running over someone in highschool? Should politicians past use of drugs be made public? What about crimes their children have committed?

Finally, those of you who think that we should do more to keep politicans personal lives private (or certain aspects of their personal life private), how would you go about doing this? Legislation placing limits on the media?

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2007-07-07 12:30pm

Well, there is Boris Johnson attempting to snort a line of coke and failing miserably, there was the Lib Dem MP who did a rentboy quite regularly, there was the Lib Deb who is dating a Cheeky Girl. There was a Lib Dem MP called Charles Kennedy who support the smoking in Parliament but decided to smoke on the train....

It all depends on what kind of media you have. If, like over here, where alot of journalists enjoy digging around for dirt, then a politicians public life will be far more likely to be more viable that most peoples.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-07-07 12:54pm

I personally think that anything illegal that a politician does or has done should be made public.

I'd agree with this too. I may not agree with all of our laws on what is legal or illegal, but ostensibly, anything illegal is nominally wrong and it should be a red flag to consider when you are running for office as you are in place as a representative of the public. You can't be a very good representative if you are morally and ethically corrupt.

So in general it's reasonable to expect a public servant to have relatively clean hands.

BUT, as your examples state, some things are silly. Anything sexual that is legal is personal and of NO importance. Whether you are gay, like porn and visit strippers, subscribe to BDSM weekly or even have NO sex whatsoever and you live a chaste life, it is no one's business but the person's own.

It is CERTAINLY of no fucking importance if their family member works as a stripper. Who cares?

It's finding the balance of personal accountability and public persona that is difficult. Since the media is hopelessly sensationalist these days, they will always cross over the line.

President Clinton getting blow jobs by Lewinsky was NOT relevant one whit to his job as President other than as a civil matter regarding his position and the chain of command. It'd be something reasonable to deal with as an in-house affair (no pun intended), that could be dealt with by fines or what have you, but it's not that important otherwise.

It'll always be thus though. Too many people feel all public people have to live their lives as shining examples to mankind. Be perfect. Don't be weird. Try to be straight, (and straight-acting). Be monogamous and committed and ideally procreate so we can have more on you in the future too.

It's ridiculous. It's another reason why in the early 70's people like Linda Ronstadt were dismissive of being famous because of this very backlash that they face. She said something like, "I set out to be a singer not a star. A Star is some concept they dreamed up in Hollywood".

Personally it's also why I hate the very concept of these "American Idol" shows. So they can sing and entertain us. What the fuck does that have to do with being an "Idol"? They deserve worship? Praise? It's a very flawed concept.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-07-07 01:05pm

I think that anything illegal they may have done as well as anything they make a part of their campaign should be a part of public record.

For example, normally a politician's personal sex life should not be that big of an issue. Unless, say, they make sanctity of marriage a big part of their platform. Then the media should be able to have a field day if they get caught sleeping around with some mistress on the side.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-07-07 01:18pm

General Zod Wrote:

For example, normally a politician's personal sex life should not be that big of an issue. Unless, say, they make sanctity of marriage a big part of their platform. Then the media should be able to have a field day if they get caught sleeping around with some mistress on the side.

Ah! good point. I hadn't thought of that qualifier. Yes I agree. Since putting issues on your platform that deal with personal behavior has to be consistent with your own life unless it's stressed that it's being done for the ethical majority, (for example what 97% of people would consider 'obscene' by society's standards). Even then it gets a little sticky doesn't it? You have to be careful that you aren't just pandering to the majority instead of protecting the minority. What is the best razor used to draw the line between such things? Is there a hard and fast rule you could use as a checklist of things to determine what is fair?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-07-07 01:32pm

Justforfun000 wrote:General Zod Wrote:

For example, normally a politician's personal sex life should not be that big of an issue. Unless, say, they make sanctity of marriage a big part of their platform. Then the media should be able to have a field day if they get caught sleeping around with some mistress on the side.
Ah! good point. I hadn't thought of that qualifier. Yes I agree. Since putting issues on your platform that deal with personal behavior has to be consistent with your own life unless it's stressed that it's being done for the ethical majority, (for example what 97% of people would consider 'obscene' by society's standards). Even then it gets a little sticky doesn't it? You have to be careful that you aren't just pandering to the majority instead of protecting the minority. What is the best razor used to draw the line between such things? Is there a hard and fast rule you could use as a checklist of things to determine what is fair?

Most of it would be common sense type of things. A politician who's adamant against gay marriage should be lambasted for having homosexual relations in the past and having them become public due to hypocrisy, someone with a strong anti-drug campaign should be lambasted for getting caught using marijuana. And so on.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-07-07 01:50pm

General Zod Wrote:

Most of it would be common sense type of things. A politician who's adamant against gay marriage should be lambasted for having homosexual relations in the past and having them become public due to hypocrisy, someone with a strong anti-drug campaign should be lambasted for getting caught using marijuana. And so on.

Yeah that's understandable, but I was wondering how do you deal with issues you yourself don't have any relation to personally. For example, say the politician never had to deal much with immigration and they were a typical Caucasian and they had to deal with a proposal to increase or suppress immigration and on top of that adopt or reject affirmative action. Assuming the politician has no racist tendencies and is fairly neutral, what guide could be used to interpret the pros and cons of the argument?

For example, could you start by holding it up to a litmus test of "Is this going to be a positive thing for the economy" or would you start by "Is this going to be a good social action that will promote diversity and understanding", or conversely "Is this going to be treated very negatively by local people who do not want a large influx of immigrants coming in to compete with them for jobs that they might also get easier if affirmative action was in place".. Etc. There are so many issues that could be argued back and forth. What kind of ethical compass can be used to interpret the best ways to go? Do you have any suggestions?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-07-07 02:07pm

Justforfun000 wrote:[

Yeah that's understandable, but I was wondering how do you deal with issues you yourself don't have any relation to personally. For example, say the politician never had to deal much with immigration and they were a typical Caucasian and they had to deal with a proposal to increase or suppress immigration and on top of that adopt or reject affirmative action. Assuming the politician has no racist tendencies and is fairly neutral, what guide could be used to interpret the pros and cons of the argument?

For example, could you start by holding it up to a litmus test of "Is this going to be a positive thing for the economy" or would you start by "Is this going to be a good social action that will promote diversity and understanding", or conversely "Is this going to be treated very negatively by local people who do not want a large influx of immigrants coming in to compete with them for jobs that they might also get easier if affirmative action was in place".. Etc. There are so many issues that could be argued back and forth. What kind of ethical compass can be used to interpret the best ways to go? Do you have any suggestions?

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Since your example doesn't seem to have anything to do with the politician's personal life, so why would it come into play whatsoever?

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-07-07 02:11pm

I'm not quite sure what your point is. Since your example doesn't seem to have anything to do with the politician's personal life, so why would it come into play whatsoever?

No it doesn't. I guess I just moved on to how you would deal with ethics in cases like this. I mean there seems to be a very effective method on this board that eventually steers most people into the "right" way of thinking and it seems to work quite effectively..so after seeing these kind of discussions, I was hoping you'd have some kind of summation to suggest to me. I've already seen why "A Priori" arguments are not arguments at all, and I'm trying to broaden my understanding of how to properly construct ethical debates.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-07-07 02:28pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Since your example doesn't seem to have anything to do with the politician's personal life, so why would it come into play whatsoever?
No it doesn't. I guess I just moved on to how you would deal with ethics in cases like this. I mean there seems to be a very effective method on this board that eventually steers most people into the "right" way of thinking and it seems to work quite effectively..so after seeing these kind of discussions, I was hoping you'd have some kind of summation to suggest to me. I've already seen why "A Priori" arguments are not arguments at all, and I'm trying to broaden my understanding of how to properly construct ethical debates.

I basically see it as a tool to expose hypocrisy within a given campaign where they are basing a good deal of it on their own personal character. If someone's moral character at home is not sound when they're using it as a basis for their policies then you can hardly trust their ability to create laws effectively that revolve around their personal ethics as a major focal point.

Darth Ruinus · Post by **Darth Ruinus** » 2007-07-07 02:52pm

Where I live the mayor was having an affair. He was sleeping around with that lady from channel 52 (Since some of you guys like in Canada, channel 52 is a spanish channel) and it was made public. The reason I have a problem with his affair, is that he trotted out his family while he was running for election, and now the mayor has the gall to not talk about his affair or family life. WTF?! He brings his wife to speeches, talks all the time about how much of a family man he is, and when he is caught cheating he suddenly wants us to forget how he paraded his family around?

When a politician makes his private life public like that, sorry Politician but you MADE it public, dont talk about your private life if you dont want it made public, and dont ask us to ignore your private life when something goes wrong epecially if you kept yaping about how your private life (which you told us all about) is so good.

On the other hand, if a politician, or a candidate, doesnt talk about his private life, people should respect that. If he commited a past crime, so what? Judge him on who he is now, not who he was.

Post by **Edi** » 2007-07-07 03:41pm

To a certain extent, politicians are public personae, no matter how reticent they want to be about their private life. So they are in no way entitled to an expectation of privacy the way private citizens are. There is an inherent public interest in the doings of politicians, even if they are essentially private matters. This means that things need to be judged on a case by case basis and things such as the choice of career for a politician's child are irrelevant to his conduct in office. Crimes by a politician's child are a different matter, since they MAY reflect on his/her qualities as a parent and a person.

Doesn't mean that tabloid paparazzi type hounding is okay, but a politician who whines about not having privacy when his affairs are outed or he goes on questionable junkets etc or expects his past criminal record to be off limits is full of shit, more so than they usually are.

Zwinmar · Post by **Zwinmar** » 2007-07-08 05:47am

I think a lot of it deals with honesty on the politicians part. Clinton smoke marijuana in college. Most of the people I have talked to really didnt care that he did. The problem was that he lied about it.

Should their private life be under a microscope? IMO no, unless they are lying about it. Have a private investigator look study them, or have the FBI do their thing. (not feasible I know)

Regardless, once they lie about something they are going to have their sceptics tear them apart.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2007-07-08 12:38pm

While I don't agree with digging up every little bit of dirt I do like to know a bit about the person I'm voting for.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2007-07-08 12:44pm

I've had many discussions on this topic in the various media ethics courses I've taken. For me at least it has always come down to the old adage of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. Say for example someone was against gays in the military/rights/marriage etc, and it turned out had a gay lover on the side...then that would be worth exposing. If however they were pro gay rights then there wouldn't be much point in exposing it, since it is hardly hypocritical of them.

Those who try to hold others to a standard they cant keep to themselves, ought to be exposed.