Random thoughts
I'll probably regret this post, but I've been thinking recently about the media brouhaha over recent stories about bigotry or putative bigotry. Bigotry is a moral failing, and "private" bigotry (the kind that gets expressed, mainly, in "heated" exchanges or drunken encounters or when choosing members of the Holocaust Memorial Council) can certainly have adverse public consequences, especially when one considers all manner of "private" bigotries in the aggregate. Here's my question, though. When assessing a politician's fitness for public office, should evidence of bigotry weigh against him/her to a greater degree than evidence of spousal infidelity or other "private" moral failings? Don't get me wrong. I believe evidence of bigotry should indeed weigh heavily against politicians seeking office, but I also believe that infidelity should weigh against candidates. I'm not arguing that those failings in either case are, or should be, necessarily decisive, but I know plenty of people who would care about one (bigotry) but not the other (infidelity).
Cheating on one's spouse, especially serial cheating, can have consequences for one's tenure in public office that are potentially as damaging as bigotry. There is the danger of blackmail, for instance, or the potential for other kinds of corruption [see Monica Lewinsky and Revlon, or lying under oath]. Why should bigotry necessarily count against a politician more than his/her failure to keep important promises or to behave honorably toward those who are closest to him/her?
A different, though related, question: Why should Hollywood care more about the ravings of some guy I've never heard of from some show I've never seen, or Michael Richards, or Mel Gibson, than about the crimes of a child rapist and fugitive from justice?
Cheating on one's spouse, especially serial cheating, can have consequences for one's tenure in public office that are potentially as damaging as bigotry. There is the danger of blackmail, for instance, or the potential for other kinds of corruption [see Monica Lewinsky and Revlon, or lying under oath]. Why should bigotry necessarily count against a politician more than his/her failure to keep important promises or to behave honorably toward those who are closest to him/her?
A different, though related, question: Why should Hollywood care more about the ravings of some guy I've never heard of from some show I've never seen, or Michael Richards, or Mel Gibson, than about the crimes of a child rapist and fugitive from justice?
posted by Kate Marie | 8:25 PM | Permalink
|
17 comments
17 Comments:
KM, let's think this through. Yes, there are "plenty of people who would care about one (bigotry) but not the other (infidelity)."
Who doesn't care about infidelity? First, those who cheat or plan to or want to keep their options open. Second, people who don't like it but really, really want that person as president/mayor/employee.. fill in the blank. That is, they are rationalizing, closing their eyes to evil, in order to get what they want or because it is way more convenient to do so.
Now, as to bigotry, do they care about all bigotry? Would these certain people care, for instance, if the drunk was raving about rich, white, Republicans or spoiled, elitist, Ivy Leaguers or Bible thumping Southern rednecks? I suspect that in these cases, the ranter would be thought to be "only expressing the truth we all know."
"Now, as to bigotry, do they care about all bigotry?"
-- I think you and I completely agree on the answer to this question.
Yeah, you'll regret it now because I'm commenting. I see the two as deserving of diffent treatment while approviving of neither. What we are most often talking about with 'bigotry" is white racism directed to black people. This has a historical context in slavery. No such context exists toward adulterers who commit private transgressions against their spouses with willing partners. When one commits adultry, they are privately shunned by the moral. When one commits 'bigotry' we find out about it because it is publicised, the 'ususal suspects' come out to protest and the media has a field day. Funny, but in our modern society, bigotry is the greater sin but I don't remember seeing it as one of the 10 laws laid down on tablets. Adultry on the other hand was right there for all to see.
"What we are most often talking about with 'bigotry" is white racism directed to black people."
-- Sometimes, but not always -- as the examples of Jesse Jackson's anti-Semitic remarks and Carter's possible anti-Semitism show. Sure, there are certain kinds of bigotry that strike us as worse because of the history of slavery in this country. But I'm not sure why anti-black bigotry should, in principle, be considered worse than, say, anti-Semitic or anti-Asian or anti-Hispanic bigotry.
They are different kinds of moral failings, yes, but in my opinion they are both matters of judging a candidate's character. And I think that evidence of spousal infidelity (especially, as I said, serial cheating) has potentially as much bearing, depending on the specific case, on a candidate's fitness for public office as does evidence of bigotry. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't believe there's a strict public/private split between bigotry and adultery, such that bigotry always belongs on the public side of the divide but adultery doesn't.
P.S. I guess I should be clear that I don't think reporters should go digging into candidates' backgrounds for evidence of adultery just for the heck of it, but I also don't think they should dig for evidence of bigotry either. If there's some compelling reason to start digging -- other than that a candidate is a Republican -- that's a different story.
"Why should bigotry necessarily count against a politician more than his/her failure to keep important promises or to behave honorably toward those who are closest to him/her?"
Well, you have absolutely no idea whether the person has behaved honorably or not, and absolutely no idea whether they failed to keep important promises. You have no idea what kind of relationship the politician in question has with his wife - perhaps they've both agreed that cheating is OK, perhaps they've both come to some other kind of arrangement. In any case, their arrangements are their own private business, and without knowing more you are powerless to make conclusions.
Then theres a myriad of ways in which bigotry would affect public policy, but far fewer ways for infidelity to have any effect.
As for Polanski vs. Washington, Richards, and Gibson, I don't know how you've decided that "Hollywood" cares more for one than the other. If you mean why you hear more about one of them that the other now, my guess would be because the incidents with Richards, Gibson, and Washington happened recently, whereas Polanski was convicted in 1979.
By the way, Grey's Anatomy may be "some show [you've] never seen," but it happens to be the most popular show on tv after American Idol.
Alex,
I don't watch American Idol, either. So sue me.
I've decided Hollywood cares more for one (Richards, Gibson, that other guy) than the other (Polanski) because they just gave Polanski an Academy Award for best director and a standing ovation a few years ago --and of course he couldn't stop by to pick up his Oscar because he's still a fugitive from justice because he raped a thirteen year old.
"Then theres a myriad of ways in which bigotry would affect public policy, but far fewer ways for infidelity to have any effect."
-- I simply disagree, Alex, since one's character has an impact on everything one does in public office. As I said, I don't advocate "digging for dirt" in either case, but if one's infidelity becomes public for some reason, there's no reason for me *necessariliy* to treat it as less serious than if a candidate's bigotry became public for some reason.
"I simply disagree, Alex, since one's character has an impact on everything one does in public office."
As I pointed out, unless you know more of the politican's relationship with his partner, infidelity per se does not tell you anything about his character.
"I've decided Hollywood cares more for one (Richards, Gibson, that other guy) than the other (Polanski) because they just gave Polanski an Academy Award for best director and a standing ovation a few years ago"
An elementary logical mistake, Kate Marie :) Even if you have a case that Hollywood does not care about Polanski's sins, you have said nothing that would allow you to compare their degree of not caring to Richards, Gibson, or Washington. In other words, if any of the three go on to do something great in the future, they may also win awards despite their sins.
And I'm not sure that Hollywood does not care about Polanski's sins. An award for best directing should be given for, well, best directing - not for being an upstanding moral citizen. As Scott Lemieux wrote a while ago on his blog, "The fact that a truly great film (about the Holocaust, no less) was made by someone who raped a 13-year old is an interesting puzzle about the human condition, but really nothing more than that; the work, like his grossly immoral act, speaks for itself. To make the evaluation of art rest on the evaluation of personalities is to not be interested in art at all."
Hi Alex,
I'll take your points from the bottom to the top. I'm not suggesting that Roman Polanski is not a great director. Though I haven't seen The Pianist all the way through, I count Rosemary's Baby as one of my favorite "horror" films and Chinatown as a great film noir. Sometimes great artists are miserable human beings. But there's a difference, in my opinion, between recognizing great art and giving someone an award or a standing ovation for it. I'm perfectly comfortable acknowledging that, say, Leni Riefenstahl was in some respects a great documentary filmmaker, but I'm also comfortable refusing to give her an award.
In any event, once you start firing people or suggesting that people should be fired for considerations other than the quality of their work, everyone is fair game. To give Roman Polanski -- or any other of Hollywood's myriad miserable human beings -- an award and at the same time to call for that guy from Grey's Anatomy (is his name Washington?) to be fired is to suggest that one person's extra-artistic "problems" and character flaws matter more than another's.
"An elementary logical mistake, Kate Marie :) Even if you have a case that Hollywood does not care about Polanski's sins, you have said nothing that would allow you to compare their degree of not caring to Richards, Gibson, or Washington. In other words, if any of the three go on to do something great in the future, they may also win awards despite their sins."
-- You're absolutely right, Alex. What can I say? *I'm* not the one whose blog has the tag line about logic, etc. :)
I will say that I don't think Hollywood *really* cares so much one way or another about a person's bigotry or their crimes as long as those moral failings don't begin to affect the bottom line. That's not the case for every individual in Hollywood, but it is the case for Hollywood in general.
"As I pointed out, unless you know more of the politican's relationship with his partner, infidelity per se does not tell you anything about his character."
-- I could say that unless I know more about a particular incident of bigotry or putative bigotry(like the story about Carter complaining that there were "too many Jews" on the Holocaust Memorial Council), I can't say for sure that Carter is a bigot. Once the story becomes public, however, I'm going to want to see Carter's response. He can either say, "That's a lie," or "It's true, but it's not what you think . . ." or "It's true, and I'm sorry." I would expect the person whose infidelity has been made public to do the same thing.
I am comfortable claiming that infidelity per se tells me something about the politician's character, because I won't be judging his character by his *own* standards, but by mine. The fact that he/she didn't consider infidelity a reflection on his/her character would itself be a reflection on his/her character, as far as I'm concerned.
Human beings aren't perfect. And politicians are human beings. Sort of. :) So, as I said somewhere upthread, I don't think that evidence of infidelity is *necessarily* decisive in assessing a candidate for public office. I just don't think it's necessarily less important than evidence of bigotry, and you haven't changed my mind. Not yet, anyway.
I say all this even while I acknowledge that if the 2008 election were between Rudy Giuliani and whomever the Democrats nominate, I'll vote for Giuliani. So maybe I'm admitting my own character flaw. :)
"But there's a difference, in my opinion, between recognizing great art and giving someone an award or a standing ovation for it."
I agree that this is a perfectly reasonable position to take. But its not the only reasonable stance on the issue. Can you imagine what would happen if the academy began judging the personalities of the people making the films? X made a great movie, but cheats on his wife left and right, Y made a slightly worse movie, but only cheats once or twice every year, whereas Z makes crappy movies but buys his wife flowers and takes her to a fair every weekend. Can you really blame the academy for deciding that personalities should be entirely outside their purview when deciding who to honor?
I could say that unless I know more about a particular incident of bigotry or putative bigotry(like the story about Carter complaining that there were "too many Jews" on the Holocaust Memorial Council), I can't say for sure that Carter is a bigot.
I couldn't agree more. Especially given that WorldNetDaily does not have the highest journalistic standards (hey, soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis)
I am comfortable claiming that infidelity per se tells me something about the politician's character, because I won't be judging his character by his *own* standards, but by mine. The fact that he/she didn't consider infidelity a reflection on his/her character would itself be a reflection on his/her character, as far as I'm concerned.
Well, all right. But I think you are wrong to say that it tells you something about the politician's character. Weak character is one explanation, and another lies in the politician's values or beliefs. Perhaps your beliefs and his simply don't match as far as sex outside the marriage is concerned.
Going back to the original question of cheating vs. bigotry, I think it comes down to who the politician was. If the person in question promised to legislate traditional values, it tells you quite a lot. On the other hand, if the politician made it clear in advance that he was no friend of traditional values, then you already knew in advance that he doesn't share your values. In this case, I don't think the incident gives you any more useful information.
Alex, I think you'd be hard put to find a politician who makes it clear that he/she is no friend to traditional values.
And how are you defining traditional values? No, wait . . . don't answer that!! That way madness lies . . . So, ummmm, who are you picking in the Super Bowl?
Yes, WorldNetDaily is not very reliable, but the source of the story was named and appears to have impeccable credentials. That doesn't make the story true, but it does make it worth paying a modicum of attention to.
"Can you really blame the academy for deciding that personalities should be entirely outside their purview when deciding who to honor?"
-- Not necessarily, but I'd expect all those Hollywood types to be consistent. When there's a big controversy over giving one of the greatest filmmakers in film history an honorary Oscar (Elia Kazan), and when "luminaries" like Nick Nolte and Amy Madigan and Ed Harris sit on their hands and pout when Kazan totters onstage to accept his award, it appears that not all extra-artistic "sins" are created equal or considered outside the purview of the Academy.
(I'll look for a link to the Elia Kazan story in case you're unfamiliar with it.)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Alex, I think you'd be hard put to find a politician who makes it clear that he/she is no friend to traditional values. "
I think its not very had at all - how about anyone who supports gay marriage?
But we don't need to get lost in the issue of precisely defining what "traditional values" are. The point is that an act of infidelity tells you that either the politician has weak character, or that he doesn't share your values; and if you already know that he doesn't share your values from his policy pronouncements, the act of infidelity does not actually give you any useful new information. Which is why an act of infidelity by Tom Delay tells you something useful about his values, but I can't see how an act of infidelity by Barney Frank would give you any useful information.
not all extra-artistic "sins" are created equal or considered outside the purview of the Academy.
I think the second part of this is not correct. Kazan got his award, so he has not been slighted by the academy. As for the reaction of the audience, I think its murky business. At issue was not just that Kazan is a bad person. It's that Kazan's award was for his contribution to filmmaking. Critics argued that Kazan actually harmed film with his testimony as much as he contributed to it.
In addition, Kazan's oscar was known months ahead of time - enough for a movement opposing it to get going. On the other hand, the pianist was a surprise winner. So whereas one was the outcome of a debate thats lasted several months, the other was not.
Alex,
It's too late to tell me who you're picking in the Super Bowl, so I guess we have to go back to the "traditional values" debate. :)
1. Not very many politicians support gay marriage. And some who do support it, even though they say they "personally" believe marriage to be between a man and a woman. *And* some gay men and women who support it say they support precisely *because* they believe in traditional values, and that homosexuals should be welcomed into the tradition. So I don't think your blanket statement -- that anyone who supports gay marriage is no friend to traditional values -- holds.
"But we don't need to get lost in the issue of precisely defining what "traditional values" are. The point is that an act of infidelity tells you that either the politician has weak character, or that he doesn't share your values; and if you already know that he doesn't share your values from his policy pronouncements, the act of infidelity does not actually give you any useful new information. Which is why an act of infidelity by Tom Delay tells you something useful about his values, but I can't see how an act of infidelity by Barney Frank would give you any useful information."
-- Again, Alex, you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes character -- and the "values" language probably muddies the water a bit. If we quit using the relativistic term "values" that we probably inherited from Nietsche and started using the term "virtues" again, my point might be clearer. To my way of thining, some traits/attributes are virtues (excellences of character) and some are not; they are not, for me, a matter of personal choice, except insofar as I choose to be virtuous or vicious. Whether Barney Frank or any other politician chooses to "value" the traits that constitute virtues tells me something about his character regardless of how he chooses to act on his "values" and beliefs.
Beyond this, though, I find the notion that the only standards we can hold someone to are the ones he/she sets for him/herself to be ill conceived. The standards themselves are a barometer of one's character. If someone kills a Jew (or woman, or homosexual, or . . .) because they don't personally "value" the lives of Jewish people (or women, or gays) or believe them to have a right to life, would you say that we couldn't judge that person's character because they had different values from ours? I'm not buying it.
And once again, who are the politicians whose infidelity wouldn't tell me something about their character because presumably they had different "values"? Even politicians whose policy proposals can be said to be inimical to traditional values seem to promote the idea of marital fidelity. Or are you suggesting that John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, etc. don't "value" marital fidelity because they support abortion rights? I just don't see how that follows.
P.S. I didn't say Kazan was a bad person. He may have been a bad person, but I don't judge him to be so based on his decision to "name names." Come to that, Dalton Trumbo "named names" of "pacifists" to the F.B.I., on orders from the Moscow-financed CPA.
Well, OK. We only got into the bit about character because you said infidelity tells you something about character, and by character I assumed you meant courage to follow your convictions, resolve, etc.
I assume that the myriad of ways in which bigotry can affect public policy does not need to be recited. Now say you find out that politician X does not place any personal value on something that you consider to be a virtue, say traditional marriage arrangements (as opposed to open marriages, etc). How will that affect public policy?
Now that you have defined the problem so specifically, you can't get away with saying noncommitment to virtue Y goes to the issue of character and character affects everything you do in office.
dude, i only found out about the superbowl when i looked at the paper headlines this morning. sorry, i'm out of touch with the "real america" :)
Post a Comment
<< Home