Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayton3
So the argument is going to be by many
"if you can't live up PERFECTLY to the values you advocate you have no business advocating them?"
Isn't it very unreasonable to apply this idea ONLY to family values?
|
Certainly, but if you're going to make the comparison be sure you apply the test in the right way, so that the comparison is valid.
Quote:
|
1) Can a politician who never served in the military be allowed to have credible beliefs on military and foreign policy?
|
Belief to the contrary of that is what would be the equivalent of "family values" politics, in that it sets forth a narrow standard of personal morality and has no flexibility about personal lifestyle choices. Merely having "beliefs on military and foreign policy" is not equivalent. Believing that all young men ought to serve in the military, and holding the patriotism of anyone who didn't in suspicion, is. Someone who holds that belief would be hypocritical if he didn't serve in the military himself, yes.
Quote:
|
2) Can a politician who never set foot on a farm be allowed to have credible beliefs on agriculture policy?
|
Same answer. The equivalent of "family values" politics would be to believe that only farmers are virtuous. Someone who believes that and has never set foot on a farm is a hypocrite. (Assuming he makes any claim to virtue.)
Quote:
|
3) Can a politician who received a private school education be allowed to have credible beliefs on public schools.
|
Again, same answer. The equivalent of "family values" politics would be to believe that everyone should have to go to public school.
In general, you seem to be bypassing the important thing about "family values" politics: it amounts to a judgment on other people's private sexual behavior, which is naturally resented by those who don't agree with the person making that judgment, insofar as he is poking his nose into things that are none of his business. None of the examples you have presented share that quality.
Quote:
|
5) Can a politician with no legal or judicial background of any kind be allowed to have credible beliefs on the constitution or the role of judgements?
|
On this, I have to say: no. Here you are talking about expertise, neither personal experience nor lifestyle choices. A politician's legal background doesn't need to be formal and can even be self-taught, but it certainly needs to
exist, and if it doesn't then his opinions on the Constitution carry no weight.
But that's an anomalous example in your list.