OK, so yet another political figure has confessed to a moral failing. There’s no need to hash out the specifics, as a gazallion other blogs and message boards will pile on just fine. What is striking to me about any of these situations is the harsh judgement and reaction that occurs - mainly from the political opponents of the given offender - as if the moral failing somehow undercuts that person’s political positions, or vindicates the positions of their opponents.
Let me be clear - this happens on both sides of the political spectrum. There’s no need to run down the litany of idealogues on both sides who have been caught in compromising positions, you’ve got Google and can figure it out. Suffice to say that moral failings are not the sole provence of one political party or the other, but when they happen - the other side cackles with an eerie mix of condemnation and glee.
Why do we do this? Its as if our minds are already made up that Hillary is a b@$%# or that George Bush is stupid, merely because a given politician may hold different values or positions than our own. And then when the worst things happen to these people - usually a sexual infidelity of some sort - than these preconceived notions we’ve come up with are somehow vindicated. “Yup, I always knew that liberul SOB was no good, and now he proved it.”
I’d like to propose a rule of thumb for us all (myself included) to try and follow. That rule is - the more information we have - the more we can judge. The less information we have, the less we can judge. Simple isn’t it?
Think about it. Here’s a sample of things I can accurately judge; whether I can finally afford a boat (Mrs. SMD would say no… 
), the strength of the Obama campaign in NC, the chance that my beloved Wolfpack will play in a BCS bowl this year (nil). I can judge all those things because I have studied up and know a lot of information first-hand.
What I can’t judge is whether or not a person in the public eye is “good”, because of a moral failing that happened before the world stage. I can’t judge or give an educated opinion on whether an athlete is guilty of a charged crime, because I am not sitting in the courtroom on the jury. And I can’t judge whether I “like” a politician if I haven’t met or spent any time with them.
Why can’t I judge these things? Because the internet and cable TV only give me one little piece of a very big pie. The amount of information that I receive from those sources gives me just enough information to say -
“Wow, that was a terrible thing about Senator Smithers. I hope the family can be healed,” or “Boy, the evidence I saw on that news story sure seems bad for the Quarterback. I hope he’s got a good lawyer.”
And that’s it. That’s about the extent of the judgement that I can provide, because I don’t have the anywhere near complete information. Beyond that, it’s really none of my business.
5 responses so far ↓
DixieInDC // August 10, 2008 at 9:42 am
You do raise some good points about judging people based on the information that is available. However, I have to say that I strongly disagree with your stance that John Edwards does not deserved to be judged. And this can be done based solely on the “public” face he has presented to the public.
He cheated on his wife, who has stuck by him through two tough presidential campaigns and, oh by the way, has an incurable form of cancer. Strike one.
Edwards preaches family values, yet committed adultery. Strike two.
The senator repeatedly lied about the affair when asked about it by various reporters. There is strong evidence he asked his staff to lie as well. And yet, he has vociferously called on President Bush and various other politicians to “tell the truth” about the war in Iraq, WMDs, etc. Strike three.
Johnny Edwards, you’re outta here. That’s an easy judgment to make.
Wookie // August 10, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I know you all are Edwards fans, but it’s pretty hard to defend him on this one. In his own words…
‘Less than a month after taking office, he was named one of three Democrats to preside over depositions in the impeachment trial that followed President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. At the time, Edwards said the president “has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter.”
Debating whether Clinton intended to obstruct justice, Edwards said, “I suspect the first thing he thought about is ‘I’m going to protect myself politically.’ He was worried about his family finding out. He was worried about the rest of the staff finding out. He was worried about the press finding out.”‘
southernmaledemocrat // August 10, 2008 at 4:11 pm
A couple of counterpoints -
The column specifically didn’t mention Edwards, and used additional hypotheticals, because the point was the public reaction to situations “like” Edwards’. What we all learned on Friday was just the latest example of a phenomenon that happens every time.
But further, I urge you to re-read the column, I never said, or implied that Edwards (or anyone in similiar shoes) doesn’t deserve to be judged.
My point was to the amount and type of judgement that can truly be done, versus the type of judgement the public tends to do.
I stand by my assertion that we all tend to judge much more harshly, and broadly than the information that the mass media presents us with would allow.
In this case, John Edwards is probably “outta here” - but that’s a political point, not a moral one. If we’re going to truly judge moral failings in the light that most people suggest, we’d better shine a bright light on everyone, and be prepared for few to withstand the scrutiny.
But we really don’t want that - we just want the head of whoever the media brings us on a plate.
Genie // August 11, 2008 at 1:28 pm
SMD, you’re right — you used this particular event as a springboard to talk about the general act of judging, and I didn’t read this as a defense-of-John or judging-of-John blog entry. And I agree — television media coverage in particular is going to skew to the ratings, which means it’s going to be fairly simplistic and focus on the goriest of the details, whatever they may be and whatever the situation is. Whether it’s television news or entertainment, there always has to be a villain and a hero — the TV folks don’t think we have the intelligence to think beyond big strokes, giant archetypes and the same players (with different faces) we’ve seen before.
That Girl // August 11, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I’m tired of people expecting our elected leaders to also be our moral leaders.
The true irony is that we, the electorate. strive to elect the person we think is most like us and therefore can relate to our issues and concerns best. Yet, when these same people show a very human flaw, we stand up in shock and wonder how in the world this person who we elected because he is just like the common man could *gasp* act like the common man.
Go to church for your morals people. Stop asking elected officials to be that for you.