Discussing
Discussing disgraced politicians with your kids

I was about 10 when Watergate happened.My kids were little when the Bill Clinton scandal was a nearly inescapable media circus.We've had some great discussions about King David, the importance of owning up to our failures. We've talked about restoring those who admit failure and the qualities of leadership. 

We're all pretty cynical about politicians.I think we are most cynical not because of their moral failures but because our political system and our media and marketing machines make lies and cover ups the most advantageous option for leadership.

I find it curious that we consider the private lives of politicians to be everyone's business, while the people who run Wall Street and the Fortune 500 corporations—entities which as a whole affect our lives just as much, if not more, than politicians (particularly as they've bought most of the politicians these days)—can not only philander to their heart's (or other organs') content without anyone paying much mind, but also remain relatively anonymous as a whole. Could you identify the Fortune 50 CEOs from their pictures? Each of them has more power than any US Representative. And yet we don't even know their names, much less demand any kind of moral or ethical standard.

It would seem to me that if we're going to pry into the private life of a representative that 98% of us can't vote for (unless you're in certain parts of Queens or Brooklyn), who is just one of 435 votes in one house of one branch of the government and has very little power all to himself, and suggest that our support for him be dependent on his faithfulness to his wife, then we would be duty-bound to demand all the more that the presidents of Wall Street banks or CEOs of major corporations, who many of us "pay" every day with our deposits or our purchases and who has a great deal of unilateral power over the lives and livelihoods of many, also remain faithful to their spouses—and, much more importantly, make decisions that are in line with the highest moral and ethical standards (including the Golden Rule) and which are in the interest of the common good—not only in order to receive our money, but to continue to exercise the privilege, extended by the people through the people's government, of allowing their corporation to exist at all.

But of course, while moral outrage over Weiner's naughty bits is de rigueur, the idea that the plutocratic class's dealings might be open to the public and subject to ethical, moral, and common-good standards is unthinkable to us. And that's all wrapped up in this American (and not at all Christian) ethos that while politicians are "supposed" to work for the common good of the whole city, state, or nation, and set a good example as leaders, those who run businesses—despite having as much, if not more, power as/than a US representative—are only supposed to work for the narrow profit interests of the shareholders, no matter the consequences to the common good.

If we're going to demand that political leaders not betray the public trust by living upright and ethical lives and always acting in the common interest rather than for narrower interests, I would suggest that we demand the same out of business leaders—and not patronize businesses that aren't acting for the common good. If the names, faces, and ethical and moral choices of 535 legislators are now all the public's business, then it's time for the names, faces, and ethical and moral choices of the Fortune 500 CEOs and Boards of Directors to be the public's business as well. I'd be willing to wager that the public good would be served much more by the public's awareness of (and likely outrage at) the antisocial, greedy, unpatriotic, and oftentimes downright criminal actions of the latter, than it is by our making a big deal out of our moral offense at one member of the former group sending pictures of his genitals to someone else.

In short, I'd suggest, to adapt a metaphor and make my one genital-related pun of this whole comment: Maybe we as a society have bigger wieners to roast than Weiner's.

I think it'd be wonderful to not patronize businesses where we felt their leaders failed morally. Obviously, similar critiques could be leveled at athletes, actors, etc in terms of power-seekers thinking they can get away with this. Also, I'm sure just as many "powerless" folk are texting pics of themselves. I realize that. But this post was specifically about public officials. 

Plus, there is a difference between the expectations of public and private officials--and it is that public officials work for us. 

If I sent lewd photos of myself around--and word got out--I'm pretty sure I'd lose a writing gig or two over it. And rightfully so. It would reflect badly on the publishing company and they'd want me gone. Same thing here. It becomes our business when it reflects badly on our country and the government they represent and when it interferes with the job we're paying them to do.

Plus, there is a difference between the expectations of public and private officials--and it is that public officials work for us.

Why?

Why are public officials expected to work for the "common good," while we have no demands or expectations from those who are so-called "private" officials?

This question becomes particularly salient given that those so-called "private" officials, thanks to certain political forces' ongoing project to dismember any restrictions on corporations' ability to spend money on campaigns, are now able to buy and sell politicians as they see fit.

Once they decide that because they run a corporation they should have a disproportionately large, if not entirely decisive, voice in discussions of public policy, don't we the people (to whom our society and resources belong) have the right to decide that their businesses' operations—including their exploitation of workers no matter where they are, their outsourcing of jobs to places where they can freely underpay and abuse laborers, their willingness to completely destroy our environment, and their other incredibly immoral actions that hurt real human beings—are now our business?

I would suggest that any differentiation between what "public" officials should do and what "private" officials should do is a challenge to us to change our perspective—and accept, as a new starting point for morality and ethics, the mindset that no matter whether they're part of the government or a corporation, our expectation is that any person in any position of authority will have the common good as their first and foremost priority. Any deviation from that norm should be considered immoral and unethical. Any attempt to put private gain before public good—no matter whether from a Congressman or a CEO—should be unacceptable to us.

In other words, I think the problem goes beyond the personal lives of CEOs—and, in fact, that their personal lives are a rather small thing compared to the massive amounts of evil, exploitation, and selfish oppression engaged in by the corporate world every hour of every day. Before we start up our Moral Outrage Machines at a Congressman taking pictures of his genitals, we should ask whether there are people with much more power than him doing things that are much worse—and, given the fact that there are, work to end their injustices before we even start thinking about the personal life of one U.S. Representative. 

Unless we do that, we're buying into the agenda of those who would exploit us—and letting them distract us with the Anthony Weiner melodrama so that we won't start demanding that they work for all of us rather than just themselves.

Why are public officials expected to work for the "common good," while we have no demands or expectations from those who are so-called "private" officials?

Because I can choose to withhold my money from a company headed by a corrupt leader. I cannot choose to withhold my money from the US Government whilst citing corrupt leaders. Your "demand or expectation" is placed upon a business when you withhold your money from that business for not living up to your standards.

... our expectation is that any person in any position of authority will have the common good as their first and foremost priority. Any deviation from that norm should be considered immoral and unethical.

Not a fan of total depravity, eh? I agree that it should be a goal to which we strive, but you're just going to wear yourself out waiting for the reprobate to make decisions in line with your understanding of Christ's mandates. You're trying to steer the Queen Mary with a butter knife for a rudder.

Abuse should be exposed at every level—I don't think anyone would argue against that. But it is absurd to believe that leaders to whom I voluntarily give my money should be held to the same standards as those to whom my money is given against my will.

Because I can choose to withhold my money from a company headed by a corrupt leader. I cannot choose to withhold my money from the US Government whilst citing corrupt leaders.
And yet, we get to vote for the leaders of government. You and I don't get to decide who sits on Goldman Sachs's Board of Directors—though I'd suggest that as stakeholders in their actions, as evidenced by the fleecing of the American public by their collusion with other financial institutions, we should get to. (Their belief that they should have an inordinate say in who we vote for, by their ability to fund political candidates, I believe also entitles us to some say in how their corporation is run.)Your "demand or expectation" is placed upon a business when you withhold your money from that business for not living up to your standardsIf only it were that simple. That government that you don't get to choose not to give your money to, also gives your money to some pretty bad corporate actors, including known war criminals like Blackwater/Xe.

Not a fan of total depravity, eh? I agree that it should be a goal to which we strive, but you're just going to wear yourself out waiting for the reprobate to make decisions in line with your understanding of Christ's mandates.

I'm not a fan of that doctrine, but that's beside the point; even the doctrine of total depravity does not deny that sin is sin, even as it suggests that people can't choose not to sin without God's help. It's time that we start accurately describing any action taken by any person in authority that isn't taken with the common good as the first and foremost priority as sin. 

Firing a few thousand Americans because they have the temerity to demand that their right to a living wage, a safe workplace, benefits, and collective bargaining be recognized, just to open up a factory overseas where folks will work for a dollar a day and no safety standards? That's a sin.

Blowing the tops off of mountains, destroying landscape that's millions of years old and poisoning the land and water, just so you can mine out more coal and poison the air too? That's a sin.

Acting as a rental mercenary force for whatever authoritarian thug calls himself a "Prince" or "President," so that he can oppress his people as they demand their rights? That's a sin.

Sitting on millions or billions of dollars while there are people in the streets who are hungry, homeless, and hopeless? That's a sin.

Cutting a corner or two on safety and putting people at risk so that the shareholders can pull in another quarter per share of dividend payments? Sin.

Paying the CEO tens of millions of dollars while the company's cleaning person has to work three jobs just to feed his family and can't afford health insurance? Sin.

Paying workers less than a living wage with full benefits, pensions, and collective bargaining, in order to help the bottom line and increase profits for shareholders? Sin.

Abuse should be exposed at every level—I don't think anyone would argue against that.

I think there are quite a few offices in New York City, and sadly also in Washington DC, where you would find a great deal of argument against that... and unfortunately, those who would argue against that are also the owners of the media outlets, so that they have a huge megaphone to sway the people into thinking that even the most basic measures of accountability and regulation for the actions of private interests—to say nothing of the kind of common-good demands that government should be making—are "job killing" and "socialist."

And yet, we get to vote for the leaders of government.

I didn't get to vote for Weiner; I cannot kick him out of office (short of pressuring my own representatives to censure him, squeeze him out, etc.).

Anyway, I'm not entirely sure what the point of your comment was, in the end.  I think we all can agree that abuse should be exposed, even if we don't agree on what constitutes abuse. Maybe instead of threadjacking the article about political abuses and steering it toward your hatred for corporations and, well whoever else you're so angry at, you can just agree with me (on-topic) that public officials should be held to a standard where they don't do this. (That's not to exclude other groups of people who shouldn't do it, of course.) And when they inevitably do do this and it meets the public eye, we can discuss it with our children as an example of how all of us need Jesus.

That seems like reasonable common ground, wouldn't you agree?

Anyway, I'm not entirely sure what the point of your comment was, in the end.

The point was that I think we've got bigger fish to fry than whether or not a public official is sending around pictures of his genitals. 

Should public officials be held to a standard where they don't text pictures of their genitals to people? It seems to me that there are other standards they should meet first, standards for what they're doing in their capacity as public officials—like whether or not they're legislating for the good of the whole people, like whether they're preserving our planet and our climate for future generations, like what they're doing about our nation's ungodly (literally) level of wealth inequality, like whether they're supporting the bombing of innocent people. 

What they do in their private life, I think, pales in comparison to the things they do that affect us all—and since the way those in government are doing their jobs is so broken, weighted for the interests of corporations and the rich and against the interests of the people, I think that might be a better place to direct our energy.

And if I have children, I think the first lesson I'll teach them about this will be: Don't send pictures of your genitalia to people over the internet.

OMG another one what is there to dicuss with your children another person that i know nothing about except that he wants to display his body part all over the world using the net ... I let god be the judge of these rich people action i'm not judging but it is a big disgrace and discussing... It"s a new one every week wow who is going up next on Think Christain on face book...or disqus etc. have a bless day all.