I prefer a feeble but human sinner

What are our moral expectations on politicians and why do we have expectations? When I go to a doctor I’m not interested in his moral conduct, I just want a good medical treatment.

But what’s the difference between my doctor and my premier, do I have the right to deliver a judgement? The difference is: I’m not really interested if my doctor betrays the collection office or his wife, because he isn’t a popular person and he doesn’t have much power. Our premier for example is popular and he has power, and the trappings of power are strong, not only for the person who command this power. Sometimes we only want to satisfy our curiosity and call it a question of morality. The Clinton-affair is a good example, some people call it moral, I would call it enviousness, especially the sex morals includes this emotion.
Of course: policy is a dirty business and disposers are no angels.
I think we should differentiate between types of morality and we should ask ourselves which type of morality is important (corruption isn’t a private thing, and the culprit has to be punished!) and which is unimportant, or just private. If Bill Clinton betrayes his wife he does nothing what is illegal. Otherwise… a man who is able to betray his wife is also able to betray the voters. But otherwise… trusty husbands are not automatically trusty politicians. Corruption is not a private thing and the culprit has to be punished. I don’t know if we are too naive or too hypocritical. Politicians are only humans, and humans are often feeble and greedy. But I prefer politicians which are feeble and greedy as long as they create a fair and social policy. Yes, I prefer a feeble but human sinner unlike a unjust moraliser.

Schreibe einen Kommentar