Inspired by all the Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Sanford stuff of course.

Assume a politician male or female, Democrat or Republican believes the following:

1) Against abortion rights
2) Against any kind of premarital or extramarital sex.
3) Against any kind of marriage aside from one man, one woman.
4) Goes to church and is generally seen to be in favor of religion.

What does the background of a politician have to be in order for you to consider their personal lives of them or their family to be off limits to attack or insult?

I'm betting I know the answer from many.

Is this a trick question? If someone believed in all that bullshit, they should at least live their lives that way. The problem is Repubs say they believe it and dont live up to it. A good Dem wouldn't claim 3/4s of that silliness.

I would say that tens of millions of American adults believe in those things.

Ok As long as it is that few considering there are over 300 million of US. Not to mention that the rest of the world isn't as strange as US.


Population, United States

304,059,724 - Jul 2008



Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division
Google

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?

1) Can a politician who never served in the military be allowed to have credible beliefs on military and foreign policy?

2) Can a politician who never set foot on a farm be allowed to have credible beliefs on agriculture policy?

3) Can a politician who received a private school education be allowed to have credible beliefs on public schools.

4) Can a politician who never ran a business of any kind be allowed to have credible beliefs on government economic policies?

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?

You can go on endlessly. Politicians in general have influence on EVERYTHING at some point but have actual experience in very little.

Finally, one could argue that only a person who has suffered through a terrible divorce or had serious problems with their kids as they grew up can really understand such matters and truly advocate "family values".

This is silly, Dayton3. When a person assumes high office, whether President, governor, senator, or any other position which may require decisions on a wide range of issues and problems, he/she will always be faced with specific cases where that official has no personal experience. So I really think you're going at the problem the wrong way. What the official needs is not a specific "background," but something quite the opposite--an ability to foresee the consequences of the decisions he/she must make. In short, I would be looking for someone who has demonstrated good judgment.

Its the values that are under attack. It could be a Leaping Lesbian Latino of Color, and they would still be mocked. Probably more so, because more "protected" your status, the more you are attacked for "treasonous" behaviors.

That is why Palin is attacked so viciously. She has become influential without singing the feminazi tune.

__________________
January 21, 2013: The End of an ERROR.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself."
---Benjamin Franklin

If someone claimes to be against abortion rights, then has an abortion, they deserve the flack.

If they are against premarital sex, and prefer abstinance education, then their daughter gets knocked up, you deserve the flack for it.

Simple as that.

__________________

It seems to me that Dayton doesn't want hypocrites to be called out on their bullshit. Hey Dayton how about this: don't be a hypocrite, don't get attacked. Simple as that.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

First

I think it is better to have values that you fall short of living up to rather than not having values at all.

And to me it is only hypocrisy if you

A) Make no effort to live up to those values or never intended to.
B) Never really believed in those values in the first place.

Second

A point many people miss is that "family values" and "economics" are connected in many respects. Premarital sex for example. If you avoid premarital sex, you avoid teenage pregnancy and pregnancy out of wedlock. Both of which it is pretty well established have economic costs for both the people involved and the nation as a whole.

Third

There are limits to the influence a person can have within their own family. Values cannot be transferred to family members any more than athletic ability.

Children sometimes rebel against their parents beliefs. Brothers and sisters choose a radically different path. Even parents of someone expousing family values sometimes do things that are monumentally embarrassing.

Why should that reflect poorly on the person promoting those values?

You started this thread by asking a question about "background" as a qualification for office. Since that initial post, you have talked about nothing but attitudes and "values." What did you really want to talk about?

That really is the crux of the matter. When you stand for something than you will run the risk of not being able to live up to those standards. When you don't stand for anything then you can easily avoid that problem. It's completely lacking any kind of integrity to say that if you broke one of your values you should just give up and not try and have any.

The part were hypocricy comes in has nothing to do with not being able to live up to your own values. It's how you treat others who have made mistakes. If someone (Clinton) cheated on his wife and you jumped all over him like a rabid dog and then you do the same thing, then you are a hypocrite. If the same senario happens and you say that it was wrong but you keep it at a more moderate level and then do the same thing than you are not a hypocrite. That's making the assumption that you admit to being wrong as well and don't try and justify it.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

I would say if you are going to preach to others, then you have to be perfect. Since no one is, they should stop preaching. Its not govts job or a politicians place to tell others how to behave. They need to shut up, and do their job. Beyond that, unless a family member makes political comments, they are off limits. ANd unless a politician uses their private life to get elected, its off limits.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

If a politician seeks office with a detailed platform, and keeps to the issues at hand in the election, taxes, spending, policy, etc.
Then that politician's private life is pretty much out of bounds.
If a politician talks about their family, their religion, their moral values as a part of their stump speech, then that politician's family, their religion and their moral values are on the table.
There are the obligatory family portraits, the spouse and kids on stage at the acceptance of the nomination, which happen, but I don't think bring the family full tilt into the campaign.
It's when a politician makes "moral values" an issue that that politician makes their own moral values an issue.
If you want to claim to be the candidate for "family values" then don't shack up with Hootchy-Kootchy Hot Argentinian news honeys.
If you want to hold up your family as an example of "family values", then don't be outraged when someone brings up that while Mom was busy being Governor and Dad was off racing snow machines, Junior was doing Oxycontin, and Sis was boinkin' half the town, and where was Mom and Dad's family values then.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address