Politics, Ethics, and Apathy.

Seditious

GodSlayer
Jul 26, 2005
2,333
1
36
New Zealand
I HAD to email my local TV News today.

for the past few days it has been exposed that the leader of the opposition party here cheated on his wife (the wife whom he admittedly had an affair with before he left his former wife).

People interviewed on the street; people I've spoken to on local forums; interviewed political supporters of said leader - have all been trying to suggest "it's none of our business."

There was an equally important ethics-based issue in local politics in the past month. In summary it was saying that anything a politician does while seated (rather than standing addressing the house) should not be reported on by the media. TV3 News was banned from parliment for a day because they screened footage of a politician childishly flipping off (doing 'the finger') to another member... while seated. -- They're in essence saying 'politicians should be respected because we don't know how they really act rather than because they act respectably,' What an insane rule to have when politicians in a democracy are supposed to be public servants.

But anyway, on that first matter, it really made me think about ethics and apathy regarding politics, not to mention that which disgusts me the most---hypocrisy.

There was a great guest on the current affairs show right after the news the other night explaining one reason why it should be our business what he has done (because both this leader and the woman he's having an affair with are political figures) and yet today still the idiotic 'none of my business' remarks are the public opinions.

If ethics isn't about how things ought to be rather than how things are, why don't all the people who think it isn't our business or anything disconcerting that politicians are deceitful and untrustworthy as we've cynically come to expect of them go open the cell doors to let out all the pedophiles and murderers who're locked up so that I can respect of their ethics that they aren't ridiculously hypocritical -- I mean hey, what do you expect of a pedophile but child abuse, what do you expect of people with anger and poverty but murder, that's just how people are, it's none of our business, they should carry on doing as they wish with us thinking no less of them.
rolleyes.gif


obviously more time needs to be devoted to the matter since it seems some people are really hard to get through to. Surely it's important that people at least come to see a distinction between our apathetic expectations of politicians and what should be expected of them.

This matter, to me is worse than the latter idea I mentioned because at least that is about our being ignorant to the facts, where as this is our knowing them and being utterly foolishly apathetic toward them.



anyways, I thought I'd post that, see what peoples take on it is, this being such an international forum. and maybe see if anything similar has happened where you are, or if it makes you think of anything to do with social apathy or hypocritical ethics or what should be expected in democracy.
 
Seditious said:
I HAD to email my local TV News today.

for the past few days it has been exposed that the leader of the opposition party here cheated on his wife (the wife whom he admittedly had an affair with before he left his former wife).

People interviewed on the street; people I've spoken to on local forums; interviewed political supporters of said leader - have all been trying to suggest "it's none of our business."

There was an equally important ethics-based issue in local politics in the past month. In summary it was saying that anything a politician does while seated (rather than standing addressing the house) should not be reported on by the media. TV3 News was banned from parliment for a day because they screened footage of a politician childishly flipping off (doing 'the finger') to another member... while seated. -- They're in essence saying 'politicians should be respected because we don't know how they really act rather than because they act respectably,' What an insane rule to have when politicians in a democracy are supposed to be public servants.

But anyway, on that first matter, it really made me think about ethics and apathy regarding politics, not to mention that which disgusts me the most---hypocrisy.

There was a great guest on the current affairs show right after the news the other night explaining one reason why it should be our business what he has done (because both this leader and the woman he's having an affair with are political figures) and yet today still the idiotic 'none of my business' remarks are the public opinions.

If ethics isn't about how things ought to be rather than how things are, why don't all the people who think it isn't our business or anything disconcerting that politicians are deceitful and untrustworthy as we've cynically come to expect of them go open the cell doors to let out all the pedophiles and murderers who're locked up so that I can respect of their ethics that they aren't ridiculously hypocritical -- I mean hey, what do you expect of a pedophile but child abuse, what do you expect of people with anger and poverty but murder, that's just how people are, it's none of our business, they should carry on doing as they wish with us thinking no less of them.
rolleyes.gif


obviously more time needs to be devoted to the matter since it seems some people are really hard to get through to. Surely it's important that people at least come to see a distinction between our apathetic expectations of politicians and what should be expected of them.

This matter, to me is worse than the latter idea I mentioned because at least that is about our being ignorant to the facts, where as this is our knowing them and being utterly foolishly apathetic toward them.



anyways, I thought I'd post that, see what peoples take on it is, this being such an international forum. and maybe see if anything similar has happened where you are, or if it makes you think of anything to do with social apathy or hypocritical ethics or what should be expected in democracy.

First of all, what country do you speak of?

Second, I suppose your contention is that to be an elected official, one must accept being a public figure, with every action and skeleton in the closet, possibly open to public knowledge. Thats essentially how American law states it. Therefore, no law should be passed, making reporting on certain actions off limits to the public.

Third, how do you explain this sex story? Its interesting isnt it? On one hand, its made the paper, and Im sure its a big deal with everyone talking about it; and on the other, when people are pressed about it, they see this affair as something very human--something to be expected, and thus forgiven. It is an interesting bit of hypocrisy. Reminds one of Clinton doesnt it?
 
GALLIC SHRUG

"There was a type of competition between Chirac and Mitterrand to see who could have more lovers. I don't know who took the podium but it was a close thing," said Dubois.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060901/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_france_sex_politics

In France there are libel laws ( I don't think they have been brought in yet in Britain, but could be wrong) which outlaw the media from reporting about the sexual private lives of politicicans.

The French people are generally happy that this is the case because extramarital affairs are very common there and they don't want to adopt the northern European prudishness towards them. They are such a corrupt people in general, that they are suspicious and scandalised by anyone who is NOT corrupt, and feel much more comfortable with people who they feel sure are reasonably unprincipled. God forbid that someone with principles would come into power and start oppressing them with their high standards.

Just look at the election campaign for Chirac, accused of fraud, when standing against the scarily moralistic (ish) Jean Marie Le Pen! The campaign for Chirac demanded: "Vote for the Crook, not the Fascist!"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/06/world/main508075.shtml

Seditious - you have a rather north European attitude towards standards for politicians' private lives!

Myself, I think that what they do should be reported, but in a non-judgemental way. The electorate can make up their own mind if they care or not. But secrecy is not a good idea . Generally speaking, if the politician is unfaithful to their wife then that does not reflect well on them. But if their wife has always had an accepting attitude towards their having a mistress, then there is no betrayal and it is less worrying regarding their trustworthiness. Probably the French do tend to be fairly unconcerned in just this way.
 
Norsemaiden Myself said:
Sometimes, the wife is allright with the philandering but, doesn't want it shoved in their face by the media. In some instances, the wives put up with it because if their husband's position falls, the wife's power falls with it. (see Hillary Clinton). On the other hand, it would be interesting to see a political figure's sexual activity presented in a non-judgemental way. "Here we have Tony Blair performing textbook doggy-style penetration, just hours before he met with President Bush regarding the war in Iraq." Could the evening news ever open up like this?