|
Edited on Sun Jun-12-11 02:05 AM by WCGreen
political circles is fungible, situational, and so, by the true definition of ethics, nonexistent.
The definition from Dictionary.com has it like this…
1. (used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence
By that very definition, there are no Ethics in politics, only the naked love of power and the willingness to do whatever it takes in order to get and retain that power.
This is, of course, why idealists like me view the Weiner situation as a breach of moral conduct, the act of what he did, and a lapse of ethical standards, the act of trying to cover up his actions.
Now since there truly are, in the real world, no ethical standards in politics, Congressman Weiner could very easily justify his actions by the way others in his profession have acted before. Just look at Vitter, Clinton and the countless others who came before.
I bring them up because they both betrayed their wedding vows and so these transgressions are a matter of personal ethics that transcend the political realm. In the case before DU now,it is up to the Congressman’s partner to determine if this breach of ethical standards is high enough to call off a marriage.
Ultimately, in the political world, it is up to the voters in his district to decide if Congressman Weiner is unable to represent their needs in Congress in an Ethical manner. They are the ones who get to decide if his behavior is truly unacceptable.
And, of course, it is also up to Congressman Weiner to decide if his sense of professional ethical standards has been breached.
The problem I have is with that hoary word, pragmatism, which seems to have come out of the closet back in the early sixties when JFK embraced it and so forever became a part of public discourse as it applies to politics. By its definition, Pragmatism trumps ethical standards.
Again, from Dictionary.com, pragmatism is defined as:
1. character or conduct that emphasizes practicality.
2. a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.
This is what we are truly arguing about in the matter of Congressman Weiner. It is probably an age-old dilemma, which in historical times has defined human nature.
The first example that springs to my mind is the famous line about Mussolini’s Italy that at least the trains ran on time, which, of course, over looked the dictators many lapses in acceptable ethical or moral transgressions as defined by the Italians by the very nature of their responce.
So of course, results matter. As they should. But who gets to decide if the personal behavior of an individual fails when it is held against a pragmatic ethical standard?
After all, when was the last time a politician of almost any stripe shuddered when charged with behavior unbecoming of a politician?
Me? Well since I ran for office and might have had a better chance if I had adopted the standard that anything goes when it comes to defeating your opponent. I left things on the table that I thought over the top but which may have given me more of a chance to win. Perhaps the very nature of politics demands that you do whatever it is you must do in order to do what you must do.
But is that the nature of how we want our congressperson to be guided by?
That, my friends, is what we truly must be worried about.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
