Are politicians' private lives fair game?

[longears15]

As the title says really...

As many Australians will know, the NSW transport minister David Campbell has resigned (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/20/2905224.htm) after the media broke a story about him visiting a gay sauna/sex club. Much of the scandal revolves around the fact that he has apparently lived a 'secret double life' (it should be noted at this point that the story was courtesy of one of the commercial stations...) for the last twenty years and also that he used his tax-payer funded car to drive himself to the club.

In any case it has sparked something of a debate here about whether a politician's private life should become news fodder, or whether they should be judged only on public performance.

As far as I'm concerned, unless said private activities are illegal, immoral or going to impact upon performance, they should remain private. The man's performance was suffering for other reasons, but in this particular case, I don't think that the media had any right to break the story. My understanding is that he was entitled to use the car for private use, and while I think it rather dishonest that he kept his sexuality a secret from his family, I don't think it relevant to his public life as a government minister.

Your thoughts?

[jooxis]

It's a tricky issue. Ideally, everyone should be entitled to a private life no matter how much of a public figure they are.
I find it silly when people get worked up over what athletes or entertainers do in their private lives (unless it's illegal of course). But it's harder to blame people who care about the immoral stuff their politicians do in their private lives. The nature of a politician's job is different, you should be expected to stay true to certain morals - especially ones which you are publicly promoting.

I would take the John Edwards example. Some people defended him saying "it's none of anyone's business". But honestly, if he screwed over the person he is supposed to love and care about most in his life, then how do you expect him to treat the American people? I think people would be right to ponder that question.

[fragglerocks]

I tend to think that if we want the media to continue to keep us informed, then we have to take all the truth, good or bad. If a politician claims to identify with the public as an honest family man, then he should not be so dumb by putting a spotlight over his head when he's going against those values. Its not the fact that he is gay obviously, because we have elected openly gay politicians. Its the dishonesty, and I think that is something that everyone takes issue with.

[Mistermook]

I don't mind whatever a politician does in his or her private life, but I don't like hypocrites. If someone presents themselves as one person and then turns around as shows themselves to be the exact opposite, I find it hard not to identify them with villainy. On the other hand, I assume human beings are humans. In the absence of any claims of being a saint, or active political campaigning against something, I'm usually alright with it if they're not perfect in their private lives.

[Nekowolf]

Yeah, I'd think it'd be a matter of hypocrisy. Like Republicans' "family-values" then it turns out they're involved in a sex scandal.

Now if this guy, David Campbell, was against gay rights, then sure. If not, then I think the worst aspect of it is that he used tax money for personal expenses.

Or like Bristol Palin. Sarah Palin went on about abstinence-only, and what happened? Her unmarried daughter got pregnant.

[jooxis]

Or like Bristol Palin. Sarah Palin went on about abstinence-only, and what happened? Her unmarried daughter got pregnant.

Well, to be fair, it was her kid and not her, so that doesn't exactly make Sarah Palin a hypocrite. She probably did preach to her daughter about abstinence, but most of us know it's almost impossible to stop teens from having sex.

[Nekowolf]

I believe she said that she did teach her kids abstinence. But while it was Bristol, it still questions the effectiveness of abstinence-only education, which is what Palin wants; therefore, in this case, bringing up Bristol's pregnancy in relation to abstinence-only is a case where private life is "fair game" in politics.

[Neerie]

As other said, it depends. Private lives should remain private, and it shouldn't matter if someone cheats, is straight, gay, or bisexual. HOWEVER, I do agree that some things should be exposed when the private life of someone contradicts the values or morals they are preaching and/or trying to push into laws.

I personally didn't care whatsoever about the whole Tiger Woods thing, it made me sick to be hearing about it for so long, when 90% of your TV channels are talking about it at one time, it gets OLD! Especially since it technically didn't affect anyone else but him and his family. He's a professional golf player, not a politicial trying to push an agenda.

However when you have homophobic men actively working to deny LGBT rights, lobying to repeal laws that protect LGBT rights, promoting the ex-gay therapies... and then you hear about him going to europe on a trip with a rentboy and recieving erotic massages, well heck now THAT is worth exposing. There's nothing worse than hypocrit bigots opressing a class of people because they can't come to term with the fact that they are part of that very same class themselve.

[cappyboy]

You know for the fact of personal comfort and matters of hypocrisy I can see the positions that have been stated so far. But I kind of have to believe the answer is just a straight Yes. For two reasons.

First off is the threat of blackmail. Think about it. You're trying to get public park built . But the project is controversial because a big hotel chain is trying to buy the land from the city so they can grow their empire. Do you want your selectman in the back pocket of the developers because they are holding some dirt on his private life over his head? I don't.

Or on the higher level, what about the threat of espionage? I see this threat come up and two names pop in my mind. Bill Clinton. Monica Lewinsky. We all know what happened there and how things went. But suppose she hadn't been the proverbial "good Jewish girl" from the suburbs of Washington. Suppose she's Ski En-Lou and her family had immigrated from China when she was 2. Beijing could easily have been holding a sword of Damocles over the family's head and forcing her to give them White House secrets. Or heck, you don't even have to be that melodramatic. She could have been an agent for the Mossad. Wouldn't have been the first time allies had spied on allies. Would you want national security secrets becoming less secret because the president was goofing around with some double agent posing as an intern?

In most walks of life, I couldn't care less what the high and mighty do in their private lives. But in politics, you have to think about these kinds of vulnerabilities that can be created by what would ideally be termed "the private life". Issues of community and/or national importance are at stake in that arena. Can you count on the public good being done if there are illicit elements at work because of a politician's "private" activities"? It's one reason I would never want to run for office. I wouldn't even want to be in a position where changes in my private life could be used as weapons against me.

[Vanito]

When the personal lifes of politicians would matter LESS people would actually be chosen for their POLITICAL AGENDA. Imagine.. politics would be about politics!

Good thing in Holland ppl REALLY dont care about politicians personal life. Thats why dutch politics are not like Jerry Springer. And dumb people like Sarah Pallin, the terminator and Bush are not in politics here. Long live common sense.

[fakepeeps7]

And dumb people like Sarah Pallin, the terminator and Bush are not in politics here. Long live common sense.

He may talk funny, but I have a feeling Arnold Schwarzenegger is a bit more intelligent than either Palin or Bush.

[jooxis]

There are definitely many worse political figures in the US than Arnold.

[Vanito]

He may talk funny, but I have a feeling Arnold Schwarzenegger is a bit more intelligent than either Palin or Bush.
He is dumb. Let him act and bodybuild thats what he is for. That idiot in politics makes me crack up laughing. He is from Europe we know what an idiot he is, so seeing him in USA politics is funny like crack. That he maybe is smarter than Bush and Sarah Pallin only makes it more funny. :rofl:

Come one why do people vote on these idiots?

[fakepeeps7]

Come one why do people vote on these idiots?

Because the really smart people are too intelligent to get involved in politics.

Basically, there's little choice. Dumb or dumber? Take your pick.

[Nekowolf]

Because the really smart people are too intelligent to get involved in politics.

Oh I see how it is, I'm not really smart? :P /jk, jk

Seriously though, politics is like a slow death from the inside that always gnaws at you. But it's also fundamentally important to understand, as well. I wish everyone paid attention to politics; depend who gets sent in affects your lives as well.

But, really, there are some pretty damn smart people in politics. But there is a lot of really really stupid people in the public.

[fakepeeps7]

Oh I see how it is, I'm not really smart? :P /jk, jk

Nah... I'm sure you're fine. :) I was just thinking about the dumbass politicians around here. Like our local MP who thinks it's perfectly okay to take his wife and two kids everywhere with him... on the taxpayers' dime. If he doesn't want to be away from his kids, maybe he should find a different career!

Seriously though, politics is like a slow death from the inside that always gnaws at you. But it's also fundamentally important to understand, as well. I wish everyone paid attention to politics; depend who gets sent in affects your lives as well.

I know. I wish more people took more of an interest and learned more about the issues. An educated populace is more likely to make good voting choices than an ignorant one.

But, really, there are some pretty damn smart people in politics. But there is a lot of really really stupid people in the public.

Of course there are. Just like in everything else. And, just like in all other areas, you hear more about the stupid politicians than the smart ones. It's a lot easier to be remembered for your stupidity than your intelligence... especially when you're making decisions for large numbers of people.

[tjstreak]

It's only a job. If you get a job at McDonald's, in an office or anywhere else, do they really go into your background. In many cases, it would be illegal for them to do so. For example, employers cannot discriminate based on race, gender, religion or place of national origin. In some places, they cannot discriminate based on sexual preference. In fact, your typical employer would be looking at a lawsuit if he started asking questions not related to the job to be done.

But aren't these the very questions we ask of politicians? That Obama is black is a very big issue for some people, and we attach a lot of significance to it. Some people claim his is a muslim; others focus on the fact that he had a crazy man as a preacher (remember Rev. Wright?). That his father was from Kenya is a big deal for others. And others claim he was not born in the U.S. If he said he were gay, the electorate would explode. What were the main differences between Obama and Hillary Clinton: race and gender.

In short people want to make decisions on things that are none of their Goddamn business and that have nothing to do with the job.

For example, playing the Sims, would disqualify most of us from many jobs. This game is a little weird, and perceived as somewhat childish. Can you imagine going into a job interview for a serious job. When the interviewer asks you what you do for fun, would you answer "I play the Sims"? Or would you try to give an answer that sounded serious like, "I read medical journals." "I compete in chess tournaments." (And these answers might be technically correct since your sims do read medical journals and play in chess tournaments.)

How would most people feel if they learned their doctor played "The Sims." It's not serious, like golf. I mean do you really want a guy who plays The Sims to be operating on you. What if he starts acting like one of our Sims, and replaces your heart with a ticking alarm clock?

And a politican who talked about playing The Sims would be laughed out of the room. So anyone reading this, is pretty much excluded from public life, unless they are under the age of 30 -- in which case they are largely excluded from public life anyway. So you either talk about playing The Sims, or you try to hide this and hope a newspaper does not expose you. You end up living a double life, claiming that you don't play the Sims, when in fact, you do.

It really has nothing to do with character, which might be the justification for some of this stuff. All of these politicians are beholden to monied interests which have bought their votes. In fact, a Simmer might make a better political leader, because they are content to have virtual mansions, rather than living in a real one.

And the focus on stuff which is completely irrelevant to the job, keeps qualified people away from politics. A lot of people don't want their private lives published in the paper. They don't want their family harrassed. They don't want every perceived fault publicly exposed. They don't want to be mocked, laughed at, or made to look the fool.

Very few of us live the life of a saint. And quite frankly, I don't want to be governed by saints. I don't want someone like Elena Kagan, with her perfect resume, and who has never taken a risk in her life. I want someone who has lived, and who has made mistakes. But the people who have lived and made mistakes are precisely those who are disqualified because they have made mistakes.

[Mistermook]

You don't think facing down the federal government on a hot button issue like gays in the military, like Kagan did while she was at Harvard, is risky enough? Gosh. Maybe we should just elect the folks who masturbate wild lions for artificial insemination purposes then, since those guys are probably brave enough.

Or hey! Bush had all of those drug and booze problems and ran a couple companies into the ground before he got into politics... All of that risk and experience must have made him an EXCELLENT politician.

...

Sorry, I'm calling you on this one. That's all bullshit. Besides, my jobs DO want to know all sorts of personal information. Sure there's a bunch of things they're legally not allowed to ask about, but the more important your job is, the more trust they're giving you? The more they want to know about your personal life. The reason nobody cares what you're like when you work at McDonalds, or if you're digging ditches, is because they're not trusting you with anything. There's a lot of jobs like that and they're perfectly fine jobs, but somewhere higher in the pay grade people most certainly do start caring because they most certainly do need a level of trust.

A lot of that can be dismissed by a certain level of professionalism, but sometimes even professional behavior isn't enough for the level of trust you're placing on someone you're asking to do a certain job. I care if my accountants lie to me about anything, and there are certain private opinions on some things my doctors might believe in that might affect what sort of medical care I'm offered. Some professions I care about their personal lives because they're given authority over other people - that cop that abuses his wife? Not my business between him and his wife, but I don't want him being a cop because there's a guy who's willing to hurt people he cares about and he doesn't give a crap about me. What will he do to other citizens?

I'm not saying I care if anyone's a saint, especially since I'm an atheist, but to suggest that we shouldn't care about these sorts of things sounds... naive. A man who cheats on his wife isn't automatically untrustworthy maybe, because we men are kind of slobs about that sort of thing, but maybe he is. A guy with a drug problem? Probably I care about that if they're also involved in flying my airplanes, and I certainly care about it if that's the guy who is working his third shift in a row about to open up my abdomen. If a person is a homosexual I don't care, but I care if I'm hiring a guy who's got a history of being handsy with the staff male or female, if only from a workplace liability standpoint. I don't even care if they're not telling me about cheating on their wife and being a homosexual, until they've explicitly told me they they're not. To my face. Then who knows? It's not a crime to lie, but I hope you can see where people don't trust liars.

Fundamentally being a politician is all about trust. There's really no skill set other than getting elected and doing what people elected you to do. Implementation and drafting of things like legislation is not a politician's job most of the time, that's why we have bureaucracies. So when politicians are liars, there's a risk attached to that. If lady can lie to you about who she is, then who did you elect? How do you know that she'll do what you elected her to do, because she might just be telling you what you want to hear. We expect that to a certain degree, and yes, I expect that a better judge might be a person's record as to what they'll do, but that still leaves "who is this person" kind of hanging in the air. A lot of people elect personalities, not platforms of issues.

[tjstreak]

Actually, I have had jobs involving a lot of trust and responsibility for most of my working life. I have not had any employers do extensive background checks. But I also am a fairly private person. For example, I deliberately use a false name on this and similar sites because if some of my associates knew I played The Sims, I would get no end of grief. No one would fire me for it, but I would be the butt of a lot of jokes. (Of course my avatar and online name would not be of any help either.)

I certainly would not run for office if that became common knowlege. That's right, if you play The Sims, you probably would not be able to successfully run for public office.

I applaud Kagan's position on gays in the military. But that was not a hard position for her to take because that was Harvard's policy as well. She just went with the flow. It's not going to bite her now.

Now a professional lying to you about matters of concern to you is a very bad thing. A professional who lies to you about something that really is none of your business, less so. And you should expect an attorney who is representing an opposing party to lie to you. (And you would be a fool to believe one.) And maybe that's my answer to this thread, if you ask someone a question about something that is none of your business, you have no reason to expect an honest answer.

By the way, since you are an atheist, you would never be elected to office. How does that make you feel? A big chunk of the electorate will not vote for an atheist, because they don't think they can trust them. So, if you wanted to run for office, you would have to pretend to be a good Christian. A lot of atheists do just that.

Personally, I think it is completely irrelevant to your ability to perform in public office.

[Vanito]

Because the really smart people are too intelligent to get involved in politics.

Basically, there's little choice. Dumb or dumber? Take your pick.
When people are selected for personal lifes two kinds of people are left over:

* those who fit the picture. (some)
* those who fake it and lie about it and manipulate it to look right. (the rest)

The selection criteria in the USA hardly involve intelligence.

[supersimoholic]

I think if you choose to pursue a job that you know will put you in the public eye (politician, actor, singer, ect.) then yeah. If they wanted a private life then they should have thought about that before they threw themselves out there.

[Oaktree]

There are politicians, actors, and singers who have private lives. Some are better at avoiding constant scrutiny than others. They still have very prominent public lives, but not every little detail is known about their home lives. I think that to a certain degree, a person has to take steps to protect their own private life, but it's rude and rather childish that people want to know every detail about a celebrity's life. Basically, in an ideal world, people would be a little more respectful of privacy, but given the world we've got, the best anyone can do is to try to stay out of the limelight if they don't want the attention.

[Vanito]

There are politicians, actors, and singers who have private lives. Some are better at avoiding constant scrutiny than others. They still have very prominent public lives, but not every little detail is known about their home lives. I think that to a certain degree, a person has to take steps to protect their own private life, but it's rude and rather childish that people want to know every detail about a celebrity's life. Basically, in an ideal world, people would be a little more respectful of privacy, but given the world we've got, the best anyone can do is to try to stay out of the limelight if they don't want the attention.
And even wose.. many politicians have not been holy angels all their lifes. When private lifes matter a lot, those who are willing to lie about their private life and cover up what they do not want to be seen have better chances to get elected than honest ones. Good liars are not the people someone wants as a politician.