Friday, September 27, 2019
The Private vs. Public Life of a Government Official
Yesterday, we started learning about Hugo Black, who was a member of the KKK yet worked to defend civil liberties on the Supreme Court. Additionally, Bill Clinton was surrounded by a sex scandal but retained high approval rating throughout his presidency nonetheless. This begs to bring up the question: to what extent should we, the public, care about the personal life of a government official outside of the office. The biggest argument for taking personal life into account is that it is a show of character. (https://blogs.mprnews.org/todays-question/2009/07/why-should-the-public-care-about-a-politicians-private-life/) If a president cannot be trusted not to cheat on his wife, how can we trust him not to cheat the people? If a government agent is known (or highly suspected) to be involved with a racist organization, how are we able to trust that they will truly uphold justice once elected. However, while this seems like an obvious question, perhaps the answer is not so clear cut. We see examples of officials doing questionable things in their personal life, yet still uphold justice through positive and well-liked actions. Bill Clinton and Hugo Black are two examples of this. In the end, perhaps we should use personal life as a warning, but not blacklist a potential official soley for one wrongdoing. That said, many people find it hard to trust an official once that they have doubts, so it is no surprise that the American public puts so much attention into personal life and character.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the question of how much weight should we put on a President's character is a really interesting and complex question. While I would agree that someone who has made a few mistakes could still turn out to be an adequate President, I think the question runs even deeper than simply whether or not their personal biases will impact their decisions. While arguably the most important role of the President is to enforce policy(and it is essential for them to be unbiased in this role in order to fairly and justly represent the people), the President also serves as a singular representative of the values of the US. As the primary representative of the people to foreign nations, as the most prominent political figure in American media, and as someone viewed as an embodiment of the ideals of the nation, I feel the President's character is extremely important to consider. Their character can influence the nation's priorities, the values of the American people, and how foreign countries view the US(which could thereby impact trade, relationships, etc.). However, as you pointed out, representatives like Hugo Black or Bill Clinton still had positive influence throughout their careers despite their less desirable character traits. This begs the question: at what point should a President's character outweigh their qualifications? I think it ultimately comes down to whether or not we as the public can trust the President to represent our views accurately and follow through on supporting these views with their actions.
ReplyDelete