The sex of politics
Does the sex life/personal life of your politician really matter to you? Should it?
Last summer, the province of Nova Scotia obsessed over the marriage difficulties of Premier Rodney Macdonald. Some voters complained that he ran on “family values” and therefore should have been above reproach when it comes to the conduct of his own nuclear family. But is that really true? Afterwards, the Premier challenged me to “define a family” in this day and age. He was correct.
Sadly, people that elect people to have power over them often expect behavior which is uncommon. Just like their “uncommon” power. But how high should these personal standards be, even if you subscribe to that notion?
Within hours of the disclosure of U.S. Senator Larry E. Craig’s arrest and conviction after an undercover sex sting in an airport washroom, Republican Senate leaders wanted him out. Although Craig had only pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor infraction of disorderly conduct, this was too much of a scandal for U.S. Republicans. There were allegations of homosexuality – and this from a politician that had railed against gays as he played to his base in Idaho. Senator Craig had even gloated over the Clinton/Lewisnky scandal that Bill “was a naughty boy, a very naughty boy.”
But where is the morality in undercover operations that involve consenting adults and end up destroying lives – including Craig’s and, even more tragically, his long-suffering wife and daughter?
How can America, or Canada, for that matter, countenance all the sex and violence in movies, music, TV, and advertising, and then censure those most visible and vulnerable for playing the angles?
The personal lives of Peter Mackay and Belinda Stronach were such that CTV national news ran the breakup as a lead story with Lloyd Robertson, culminating in Mackay’s fabulous self-pitying-potato-patch-digging camera opportunity. The fact that Belinda had crossed the floor to the Liberals was secondary to the breakup with the Deputy Leader of the Conservatives. Peter was sincere in his plight and pain. He played for the cameras because, heck, that’s what we wanted/expected. Why fight it?
I think we should fight it. How someone administrates, and leads, not if they are gay or straight or married or philandering, should matter.
Leadership does not mean a total command of personal virtue anymore than a doctor can operate on his own foot. Strangely, we seem to feel that leaders who are alcoholics are still morally better than those that lack sexual restraint.
The truth is we only need those skill-sets that affect leadership, management, and policy development and administration. But we seem to value notions of virtue more than educational background or intellectual capacity – the very things we really do need in a politican. Bush was ultimately more competitive from an electoral perspective because he represented a party that prioritized “moral standards” (read sex) over the Democrats scandal-ridden Bill Clinton.
Voters often make a decision that is populist — whom would I “have a beer with.”
Democracy, like a family, is as imperfect as the human beings that comprise it; and while we get the politicians that we deserve, they often get a hypocritical electorate that they don’t.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Obviously we as voters demand much higher standards than we admittedly are willing to live up to ourselves. It truly is a matter of reality. We tend to
fantasize virtue, especially when it involves another person. Inherently we take the popular route. Well, most do. Those that are secure enough to take the road less traveled may go against the grain. I for one am secure in the fact that I trust my own opinion, and thought process. This enables me to speak as I think. Even when it is not the most popular. This ability comes with maturity. A type of maturity some never reach. Now regarding Craig. Sure, the popular notion would be to oust him. So perhaps the situation was capitalized on due to this fact. Knowing well that the majority would follow suit in shredding his career , and life. Before I personally make a rash decision I sit back and personally analyze the matter. I’m getting to my opinion on Craig, however my approach is of most importance. I first honestly speaking, did not experience a sense of alarm that the media, and others portrayed, nor do I think they did either. I feel they took an opportunity to sensational! ize. The media is notorious for this, and so are many people. If I were trying to achieve the destruction of someone, or the destruction of a party for whatever motive. I certainly would take advantage of the situation. In my life and career I have seen this hypocritical approach many times. Any readers probably have as well. I would love to elaborate on this subject further but this format is limited in its tolerance to my psychological analysis I am sure. So pressing forward I say this; Craig’s stiff approach, and past voting on issues certainly aided the shredding of himself. Last comment is of course assuming that he is truly guilty of trying to pick someone up in a bathroom. Lets consider that point. I personally know several gay people that voted against gay marriage. Why, I have no idea. I do know that their voting on the issue was certainly voiced without solicitation or the need to do so. So the idea of Craig s past voting record just went out the door with me. In ! my mind is he hypocritical. No, perhaps in his minds eye there are leg itimate reasons for his voting outside of personal preservation. That is not my call nor the publics, constituents included. Keep in mind that his voting is to be for his constituents for whom put him in office. Is not that the way he is to line his votes up? Chew on that a bit. We tend to use a two edged sword when scrutinizing voting records. If I am clear on politics it is assumed, being a democracy that the representative is to vote on issues based on the majority opinion of those he is representing. Please correct if I am wrong. Maybe Craig was doing just that. This is reality as it presents itself. Now I look at his service record as far as his abilities, and expertise in carrying out his job. Seems to me he has served his constituents well, he in fact has held the seat a number of years. Could he perhaps have been stiff on Clinton based on this same principle? How could he ever imagine he would be nailed for what is accused, he did however if true respect his office,!
and did not perform any of the accused acts in his office, or with anyone that he had influence over. I give him that in his behalf. So cutting my rambling short lets now assume he is innocent. This one is simple. Perfect opportunity, they (whoever they may be?) capitalized on the aforementioned tactics of most following the popular opinion due to insecurity of being ones self or lacking the security of being different, including his on party. I have presented to you a very important approach to this that I am sure many of my colleagues have pondered. So I feel it is worthy of your consideration. Based on my personal analysis I feel he should remain in office. I think he has been harshly dealt with. Now consider my approach, and reach your own conclusion. I certainly will entertain any comments, as I have provided
the following info:
Email: marktaylorphd@gmail.com
Warmest Regards
Mark
September 8th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
How do you feel about proportional representation versus the current system of ‘first past the post’ in our democracy?
September 10th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
What consenting adults do in their private lives is none of my business. I’m sick and tired of the slime-mongers who pass themselves off as legitamate news reporters constantly bombarding me in every medium with the intimate details of every one else’s private lives. I’m more interested in how the duties of office are fulfilled. Shining a bright light on the private lives of anyone or group only distracts from the important stuff.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
i agree with mike
September 21st, 2007 at 5:05 am
The way that I read this is that everyone is interested in what Peter MacKay is doing with his private life.
I really think that everyone needs to look in the mirror before they pass judgement on what Mr. MacKay does with his private life. It is one thing to criticize what he is doing as a member of a political party but it is another thing to infringe in his private life.
I would blow my top if someone would come in my house and criticise the way I raise my family or discuss my sex life in the newspaper.
We are in 2007 and personal and private life should remain personal and private.
I would vote for a prostitute in a heartbeat if she were the best candidate to bring my Canada to a safe place. I have been looking for years for a candidate to offer a safer Canada, a more prosperous Canada; a Canada that takes care of its elderly, sick and homeless.
The only thing is, he or she has not surfaced on the political scene.
Do I wish to remain anonymous and hide behind a piece of paper? I don’t think so…
Mario Couture
Upper Tantallon