So I’m thinking about all the scandals, moral scandals that have rocked America in the past several years. Bill Clinton’s blowjob. Vitter’s hookers. Gingrich’s, Guiliani’s extramarital affairs. And I’m wondering about all this.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t care about someone’s personal vices when it comes to being a leader. FDR was unfaithful to Eleanor. JFK was unfaithful to Jackie. Grant was a drunk. Churchill suffered from the black dog of depression.
I am rambling about this notion of leadership and moral vices, or morality in general. I am wondering if one of the problems we now have in government is because anyone who wants to run for office has to be so squeaky clean in their life that we may be excluding folks who would make damned good leaders.
Have we in America become even more Puritan than the Puritans? Is the measure of leadership capability the notion that one has never been wild in their youth, did drugs, fucked themselves senseless, been in jail?
I don’t know. I think there is a problem here.
In the comments of my “social justice” essay, I brought up Oskar Schindler, because that’s a nice easy analogy to make, when someone asked who we can trust if the shit really hits the fan in America and we need help from a fellow citizen.
Oskar was a drinker, fornicator, he was a member of the Nazi party, he profited from war. And yet he saved thousands of Jewish lives. Go figure. At the same time, many “leaders of the community” in Germany stood by and watched others be killed wholesale (not just Jews but communists, intellectuals, gypsies, so many many folks) — and these “leaders of the community” played by the rules, went to church every Sunday, were good neighbors, etc.
How can we judge who will be a good leader? How applicable is personal morality in the sense of “vices” when it comes to a good leader? And are we cheating ourselves of good leaders due to the impossible qualifications we set for public office nowadays? Qualifications that, of course, we have found did not bring forth representatives with no vices — just those who hide their vices.
It was never the vices that bothered me — it was the hiding of them. And in some cases, I didn’t even mind the hiding of them — but minded the nonsensical public chastisement of others by these representatives about the same vices they themselves practiced.
How can we judge a good leader? Maybe it’s fate that puts its hand on a man or woman and they end up doing what they were fated to do whether they are a “good” or “bad” person.
What do you think?
36 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
… of hypocrisy that bothers me in this — that folks represent themselves as morally pure but are not.
And the examples of “vice” I’ve given are only a tiny fraction of what I’m talking about.
Some folks make extremely serious mistakes in life. And yet they would make good leaders. Is there any room at all in this country for including them in our body politic? Not just as political leaders but as teachers, doctors, lawyers, all that.
This is another RW/Republican voter suppression tactic.
do we demand these purist standards because we worry if we elect a vice ridden human it might reflect back on us? I don’t care myself, but it must be important for somebody because we always end up being subjected to silly debates about the character of a politician and the qualities that people seem to want are mystifying to me. Put me in the “don’t get it” box.
“Hypocrisy is the vaseline of political intercourse.”
[i] Pieter-Dirk Uys[/i]
…the shiny one, and posit that societies agree upon certain lies. Everyone, but everyone, knows they are lies, but we agree because we are essentially wired to do so, because the communist party or evangelical church or local book club are all, well, that way. We spend our entire lives from the time we are very small learning to be sort of like what we think people are supposed to be. The more concentrated power becomes, the more people it purportedly represents (or indirectly controls) the better exemplar of the dominant lies a person needs to be. Part of it is conformity; part of it is predictability; and part of it is the hierarchy, but by the time one has enormous power — whether one is a senator or commander of a nuclear submarine — one gives off no clues whatsoever that would indicate genuinely idiosyncratic behavior, truly individual behavior, outside of some acceptable and very very narrow band of eccentricity.
I think we’ll get leaders with genuine personal backgrounds when the system we’re in collapses, and acceptable is redefined. Sometimes I think that systems collapse for just this reason, to create a broader range of acceptable behavior, places where individual dignity can thrive…
taking off hat…
It is the media that has changed the focus, and only because it has proven to be profitable. Shame on us for making it profitable.
As you have pointed out, many a leader has had a skeleton in the closet that had no relevance on their ability to lead. Unfortunately, the days of judging our politicians by their leadership have been replaced with endless drivel on their morality or lack thereof.
and said, “Why, yes, I smoked pot when I was in college!” and then followed with, “And by the way, I’m going to legalize it!”
Yep, I’d vote for him with my hands tied behind my back and a pen in my mouth….(which isn’t very easy to do!)
Anybody honest enough to admit that they are human and not a hypocritical asswipe has my vote.
that we elect ‘representatives’, not ‘leaders’.
count. Has the leader shown that he/she is good at doing what he/she is paid to do? Its that simple. In almost all cases, if a person is excessive in their vices, or lacking in the necessary character traits, he/she will leave a trail of failures.
You know, if we would have done this in 2000….
What’s a fornicator?
the leader is a woman and gets caught with a 21 year-old boy tasting “the pearl of great price”?
Just askin’.
Author
There is a distinct lack of authenticity in our politicians nowadays.
I remember reading a great NYT Magazine article – an interview of John Kerry. He brilliantly analyzed how to deal with the terrorist threat — but the interviewer also noted how balky he was at saying ANYTHING to the press. Of course, he had reason — right after that the RW noise machine went ballistic saying he was minimizing the threat of terrorism, etc., etc.
But I think he missed an opportunity — as you say. The noise machine can only hurt you if you give a fuck what they say. Leaders have to be willing to take risks and stand by those actions.
Kucinich said just that!
I do know he wants to legalize pot, Richardson too.
Whether they’re actually telling the truth???
worrying ourselves over the moral backbones of our elected officials. That isn’t to say other countries don’t, but ours has an especially fire-and-brimstone attitude (doubly true when sex is involved).
When I was living in Russia, someone explained our two nations’ divergent attitudes towards sexuality thusly: Americans will plaster sex on billboards, commercials, and clothing, but the actual topic makes them squeamish. Russians are much more prudish about advertising sexuality, but they have less hangups about it in action. That’s a gross oversimplification (Americans are quite a bit more forgiving when it comes to alternative sexualities than Russians), but there’s a nugget of truth there: we’re a walking, talking Madonna-whore complex.
about leadership. One aspect of what people bring to leadership is their experience–all their experiences.
It shapes who we are. We can’t escape that. Everyone gets “off track”, makes mistakes….works through.
I cannot imagine being attracted to someone as a leader who oozes perfection. It does not exist.
So what if you tried marijuana? Just inhale next time and move on.
Peace.