Well I am just stumped by that attitude. “I don’t care what you do as long as you do it single-mindedly”. What about adapting to circumstances?
I can’t even begin to understand this way of thinking.
First you imply that character doesn’t exist, but then, character is how one behaves when no-one is watching?
I’d have to say that my first inclination is to go with whoever is advocating positions that i agree with. However, ‘character,’ depending on how you want to define it, is very important to me, especially in the event that my candidate isn’t elected.
Whatever his politics, I would like to have someone reasonable, thoughtful, and willing to listen to the opposing side…of course, I don’t really care about sexual foibles, etc. unless they rise to the level of criminal offense. And I think that, as some other posters have noted, ‘strong’ is hard to quantify, and quite often refers to intractability on issues the poster agrees with.
Frankly, I’d want that in the candidate that agrees with my politics as well, since I think we’ve gone too far in demonizing our political enemies for the good of the country.
Of course, you’ll notice this same thinking in the many liberals that would be comfortable with a McCain presidency despite policy disagreements, because he comes across as a ‘good guy.’
I don’t want to know about a persons “character” at that particular time. :eek:
There are many components to being a good leader:
-Ability to lead and influence others (charisma)
-Direction and vision (the issues)
-Ability to recognize and make the “right” decisions for the “right” reasons (IOW, character)
It’s simplistic to say one is more important that the other. A charismatic leader without direction is just a talking head (Kerry). A capable leader without a moral framework or is so certain of his morality that he is unwilling to comprimise can incite disaster (Bush). A leader with a clear vision who wants to do the right thing but lacks the ability to generate support is useless (Nader).
That would be character.
The reason that people get all worked up over affairs or corrupt dealings is that they demonstrate a lack of character. We trust our politicians to act in the best interest of their constituents. If said politician can’t manage to not have an affair for four short years or embarks in shaddy dealings, how do we know he isn’t violating our trust as well?
Are you aware that Hitler possessed your first two qualities?
And your third criterion, “making the right decisions” is completely subjective. The “right” decisions means nothing more than "decisions I agree with. For millions, Hitler met that standard as well.
I diasgree that Kerry has no direction. I also disagree that he has much charisma.
I strongly disagree that Bush is a remotely capable leader. Capable leaders do not make reckless decisions or get us into military quagmires. I do agree that he has no moral framework (other than religious zealotry) but that’s not why he’s a crap president.
I dosagree. They get worked up about public corruption because it actually affects the public. “Character” has nothing to do with it. I don’t care if a guy fucks dogs as long as he doesn’t fuck my dog.
What the hell does an affair have to do with how a guy does his job? What the hell does sex have to do with character?
Martin Luther King was a chronic adulterer, did he lack “character?”
If you need surgery, do you care if the surgeon cheats on his wife? Does his sex life have anything to do with his ability to perform surgery.
Elected leadership is just a job like any other. People can either perform their jobs competently or they can’t. Moral “character” is nice but it’s not required. Sometimes it even gets in the way (Jimmy Carter).
Here’s another way of looking at it: you have Candidate A whose policies you rate 3/10 but you reckon will actually vigorously pursue and achieve them, and Candidate B, whose policies you rate 7/10, but you reckon that he’s likely to cave or dither in the face of opposition, thus getting little or nothing done. For whom do you vote?
I’d vote for Candidate A.
If I made each rating 5/10 there’d be no contest, would there?
No. What I said was that the definition of character varies from person to person. Your definition may not be the same as mine. That does not mean that the concept of character in of itself does not exist, but that each person judges it differently. There is not a single, universal standard-- that’s why I call it intangible.
Secondly, I said that the image that a person presents in public is not necessarily a true reflection of their character. From what I’ve heard, people who knew him casusally thought Jeffery Dahmer was a nice guy. Judging a person’s character based on a fifteen second video clip or on watching a speech is like judging a work of literature by the first sentance in the book.
That doesn’t make any sense. Candidate A, who holds your views 30% of the time, will be vigorously pursuing and achieving policies that you don’t favor 70% of the time. And since Candidate A is supposedly more effective, that means that you can bet with some certainty that he’s going to be making great strides working contrary to most of your interests.
For your theory to work, Candidate B would have to accomplish, literally, nothing (and if he’s such a crappy politician, why is anyone supporting him in the first place?), and the views on which you don’t agree with Candidate A would have to be pretty darn minor. Even if Candidate B is less effective on getting his policies accross than Candidate A, it’s still likely that he’ll win some of his battles, and he won’t be actively working against you as much as Candidate A (and even if he is, you’ve said that he’s ineffective, so it’s not as big of a deal).
In a representative democracy you vote for someone to act for you as a proxy. You don’t get veto power on their vote until the next election and then it is only retributive, it doesn’t undo what that representative did during their time in office. A campaign promise for behavior X on issue Y is all well and good, but it is not binding. A trust relationship is explicitly involved in vesting your political power in some candidate for some period of time, as we all do who live in representative democracies. Evaluation of the character of the person one is entering into a trust relationship with is generally a good idea. Their positions on some issues and how they articulate them can be clues to this character, but ultimately a voter is vesting their political power in another individual. This individual’s motives, reasoning capabilities, and judgement are of significant importance when entrusted with such a responsibility. These are often considered aspects of a person’s “character” and therefore weigh heavily in a decision to invest political power.
Enjoy,
Steven
That’s not quite correct: there’s the neutral ground. Just because you don’t favour a policy doesn’t mean that you hold it in disfavour.
Well if you don’t disfavor a policy that’s in opposition to one that you favor, the issue probably isn’t that important to you anyway (since, in effect, you’re saying "I don’t care what he does on this as long as he makes a decision).
It still doesn’t make any sense to vote for Candidate A. Let’s say you agree with him on 3/10 of the issues, disagree on 5/10, and are neutral on the other 2/10. He’s going to be working in your interest 30% of the time, actively working against your interests 50% of the time, and doing things that you don’t care about either way 20% of the time.
Let’s say you agree with Candidate B on 7/10 of the issues, diagree on 1/10 of the issues, and are neutral on the other 2/10. Though you posited an ineffective candidate, he’s still going to get some of his stuff through, so let’s say he ultimately promotes your interests about 40% of the time whereas he caves on the remaining issues you support. He disagrees with you on one issue, but since he’s ineffective and you presumably agree with the opposition (or would at least prefer that the opposition had their way), that might actually be a bonus for you. And the other 20% of the time you don’t really care what he does (unless his “weak character” compels him to make no decision at all, in which case I guess I’d need an example of what you’re talking about).
Can you give an example of a scenario in which it would be a good idea to vote for Candidate A?
I go with issues over character, because I don’t think we ever know character of a candidate or elected official - and it’s the easiest thing for the political opposition and media to distort.
Character is measured better in posterity, and then very imperfectly.
Further, most citizens believe their candidate has better character anyway - it’s a chicken-and-egg thing. If in office, the official’s character is impugned, the people who never liked him/her for their issues will believe everything, and those who supported him/her will believe the charges are all lies and distortions. That’s true in all but the most extreme cases.
I’m not denying tihs, but can you give me an example? I am really having trouble thinking of a policy that I have absolutely no opinion on. I actually tend to agree with shy guy’s analysis.
I was specifically thinking of Hitler and Stalin when I wrote it. Right and wrong are subjective but there are certain objective standards which most people would agree are wrong - ie systematically killing millions of people.
His religeon is his moral framework. That’s what religeon is. Capable leaders DO sometimes make bad decisions. Leadership is not being omniscient.
Because his “job” is to represent the United States. It’s the same reason accounting and law firms and investment banks “frown” on their employees publicly acting in a manner that puts them in a bad light. People see someone who is supposed to make important decisions - decisions that affect millions of people - and demonstrate good judgement. Do you think that cheating on your wife with a 21 year old intern is good judgement? Why should we assume that even though he breaks a vow to his wife he will uphold a vow to his constituents? At the very least, I would prefer to not have a leader distracted by these kinds of family problems.
Yes, in this particular area of his life.
Would you invest with a stockbroker who cheats on his wife? Or does drugs during his free time? Regardless of his performance in the market?
I will agree that we do set impossibly high standards for our politicians. You have to question what kind of person has no vices at all.
If he consistently showed good results, I’d have no problem with this.
I think it’s irrelevant.
I don’t give a crap about his vows to his wife. I just want him to vote my way and sign my way and veto my way. What he does outside of that is of no concern to me. I would certainly rather have an amoral libertine who supported my issues than a saint who did not.
If he’s making me money he can make goat porn for all I care.
As long as the drugs to not impair his cognitive abilities to make me money, I don’t care if shoots heroin into his eyeball. I don’t even think it’s immoral.
Well, that’s your choice I suppose. Good luck with that.
It’s not an issue of “morality”. Personally, I would not want someone handling my affairs who constantly indulged in an addictive mind-altering substance.
Then you’re implying it’s not the character, it’s that you don’t trust the competence, which is begging the question.
You’ve changed the scenario, and yes, I would weigh up what the candidate was likely to achieve that I did not like.
In what way? Please feel free to correct me.
Why? Are you a political masochist or something? Seriously, I want to know how you could justify voting for a candidate who will be actively working against your views.