Rational Philosophy

What response to public wrongdoing?

In his chronical of Eliot Spitzer’s predecessors in doing wrong, N. R. Kleinfield makes a compeling case for a connection between power and irrational risk-taking. The piece focuses on sex scandals, but could just as easily have included bribery and corruption. Kleinfield draws on the opinions of experts in psychology to underscore the logic behind the link — people who seek power typically have an appetite for high stakes and pushing the envelope.

We gasp in surprise when we learn of each new scandal, but perhaps we should not really be surprised. Abuse of power, sexual extravagance, and a sense of being above the law have been with us all through history. The difference is that these days there’s generally more accountability, and more publicity.

In his initial announcement, Spitzer apologized to his family and said that his connection to the prostitution ring was a private matter (although he did apologize to the public, too). This echoes previous scandaleers who have either explicitly or implicitly sought to separate their private actions from their public role.

Unless we’re to compound the abuse of power, any illegal actions should be appropriately prosecuted. But what about immoral or inappropriate acts, things that are not illegal or wouldn’t typically be subject to prosecution.

As members of society we can ask ourselves two questions:

1. How much do we care to let the private actions of public figures reflect upon their public roles?

2. How do we action upon that answer?

In America in recent years it has begun to seem that the intense scrutiny of the private lives of candidates for public office has gone beyond the point of appropriateness and good sense. After all, if we accept that those who seek public office must be prepared to tolerate risk, and to gain or lose a great deal, shouldn’t we tolerate the idea that this personality type won’t be happy with slippers and a pipe in the evening (at least not a tobacco pipe)? I’m not saying we should excuse or overlook illegal activity, nor turn a blind eye to serious character flaws, but the important thing is that the person can do the job he or she is elected to do.

If the politician can maintain a rational and exemplary record of public service, why should we care, or even need to be aware, that he or she has a personal pecadillo or two?

Which brings me to the definition of flaws. On moral matters we define a sin as something that, from our perspective, we would judge immoral. As I outline in my book (LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do to Survive), it’s possible to point to a rational origin for our sense of morality, thereby lending it an objectivity, but as morality reveals itself in the world, it tends not to be rational.

Let’s cut the politicians a break and allow them their private lives, flaws or no flaws, moral or immoral. Let’s not dig if we’re only digging for private dirt. When society expects its leaders be not just effective and law-abiding, but also irreproachable in mind and body, society loses.

For more rational, science-based explanations of life’s meaning and purpose, please refer to my book: LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do To Survive.

To satisfy the political machine in the name of their popularity, presidents are called upon to perform many functions, attend many events, make many speeches. President George Bush today recognized Hanukkah and evoked the memory of Daniel Pearl. Would Daniel Pearl have welcomed the honoring?

Bush quoted some of Pearl’s last words, “‘My father is Jewish. My mother is Jewish, and I’m Jewish.”’ Then he said, ”These words have become a source of inspiration for Americans of all faiths. They show the courage of a man who refused to bow before terror — and the strength of a spirit that could not be broken.” Bush juxtaposes two ideas in order to connect them: The idea of faith and the idea of refusal to bow to terror. But given Pearl’s journalistic profession and his choice of pursuing it as he did in such dangerous places, would it perhaps not be more compelling to say that Pearl’s was less an inspiration of faith than of truth?

Mike Huckabee, an unexpected front-runner for the GOP candidacy, might be too easy a target, but his disarming lack of remorse in the face of his faults could win him supporters. Huckabee has refused to retract his idea, as it was voiced in 1992, that AIDS patients should be isolated. His justification for not retracting the statement? He believes it was an appropriate degree of caution at the time. He also continues to stand by his statements that homosexuality is aberrant, unnatural and sinful. Sinful because it “misses the mark.” (I doubt that a homosexual would agree!) And unnatural because it doesn’t meet the ideal of one man, one woman in a pro-life marriage under god. His justification for this being the ideal? The perpetuation of civilization.

Clearly not a man of science, Huckabee’s claim that homosexuality is aberrant or unnatural is easily refuted by well-documented studies showing that homosexuality appears in many species. And on the matter of his fear about the end of civilization, there’s ample evidence that civilization has done very nicely thank you over many millions of years, undeterred by Huckabees concept of a God insisting on one man, one woman, pro-life. But we’re still left with his position of authority as a former Baptist minister on the question of sin. As Huckabee says, we’ve all missed the mark, we’ve all sinned. In which case I expect we should wait for Huckabee’s future installments of what constitutes missing the mark so that nobody feels left out…

Back to Bush.

Also today, in the same NY Times piece, we read that, despite his record, Bush marked International Human Rights Day. I wonder whether he suspended torture of American detainees for the day, too, as a sign of his profound respect?