Why do people care about the personal lives of polititians?

Personal lives are relevant because they reflect on the nature of the politician. Perhaps not as much so as is made out to be, but for cases like Elliot Spitzer the COMBINATION of their politics and their personal lives proves them untrustworthy.

edited 10th Mar '11 3:52:52 PM by neoYTPism

@Beholderess:

Pretty much sums up why I think its our business. We have a right to know if our leaders are practicing what they preach. If somebody can pass a law saying I can't do a thing, it's damn well fair to hold him accountable to not do the same thing.

@Barkey, way back: That was a general "we". I don't get the fixation on politicians' personal lives either. Sorry for being unclear

People care, only insomuch as it is important to see consistency in word and deed in elected representatives

For if we cannot trust them when they represent themselves in public in matters pertaining to how they appear, how then can we trust them when things matter.

See, if a guy says, "yes, i visit hookers, sometimes, but that's a private matter", i'd trust him. but if he goes all condemning and hellfirey, i'd wonder if it was only a matter of time before something unsavoury turns up

^So I could count on your vote if they ever let me run for office?

Pim Fortuyn was not a racist: his anti-Muslim immigration stance was based on (in the broad sense of the word) liberal concerns.

Oh? He was presented as a racist in the printed press I read. I'd love to hear another perspective. BTW what does "liberal" mean in Dutch politics?

It seems that almost anyone who opposes immigration is framed as a racist by the press; I fell for it myself, til I dug deeper.

I'm using liberal in the sense of being tolerant and permissive (something which many so-called "Liberal" parties often fail at). Fortuyn wanted to shut down Muslim immigration to protect civil liberties and the secular, socially tolerant Dutch culture.

From Ihe Other Wiki:

He wasn't perfect (he favoured national service, for one thing), but doesn't sound like a racist to me.

Eh. One could argue that his racism is between the lines. But racism isn't the issue here, it's xenophobia. Not the same thing at all. And he justifies it quite well, too. I mean I strongly agree with him, though it's only the Islamists that hold themsleves to such high standards, most Muslims are more laid-back.

And frankly, Homophobia is not about being Muslim: it's pretty international. Neither is lack of practice in democracy. That's the North's damn fault for favouring dictatorships in those countries: we currently have proof that all of them strongly desire democracy.

In fact that's why they're emigrating into Europe: to live in a State of Right, where they don't have to fear an arbitrary leader and the Law protects them regardless of status (it's an idealization and we know it's far from being there, but from their POV it's already more freadom than they sometimes know how to handle).

The matter of the fact is that those people came to work, and they're trying to keep their own culture alive. Demanding that they lose themselves as a precondition from them coming... where will they "learn democracy"? Where will they lose the cultural hangups? The only way to do this is taking them in, installing them apart from each other in the midst of amjoritarily native neighborhoods, allowing their children into national school, and again avoiding any concentration anywhere, perhaps even forcing a ratio, and giving them some freaking time. The second or third generation will be mostly religion free, especially if they don't get harrassed and ridiculed for it at a national, political level. If, on the other hand, their peers pressure them individually into leaving it... even passive peer pressure can do the trick. If most of the socializing is done around kegs of beer and not doing so results in professional cluelessness, then nobody will want to be left out of the loop.

Also, I too favour national service.

That Fortuyn person sounds like a real xenophobic sod.

Meh. If not wanting to be subject to an uber-conservative culture is xenophobic, I'm unashamed to call myself such.

Most Muslims I encounter are cool folk and I've nothing against co-existing with them; they keep any constrictive BS amongst themselves, if it exists.

I also think those fleeing persecution in Islamic lands should be allowed to stay: I'm sure they'd appreciate an environment that gives them room to breathe.

I think what would bother me is Islam becoming a dominant cultural, or significant political force in the West.

@MRDA I'm not sure where you live, but I highly doubt that Muslims are a strong political force in any Western nation.

I'm in the UK.

My point still stands.

I'm not talking about what is, but rather what could be.

Could be? It's still highly improbable.

Must agree with man. Islam, very powerful in Europe, never will be. Too many raging atheists, there now is. Among the Muslims, even.

I think it may be a possibility, if not an inevitability.

I guess my problem isn't so much with Muslims, as it is Islam.

As for the original topic, I love it when some sanctimonious, would-be-authoritarian politico gets dragged through the mud by the press; I have some sympathy for celebrities in the spotlight who make their money and mind their own business; politicos who play god with folk on a daily basis deserve everything they get, in my eyes.

Because people dislike hypocrisy, even if what the positician is saying may or may not be something they agree with. OTOH, most people at least in America are more likely to laugh it off if the wrongdoer sincerely apologizes, as opposed to covering it up. That's why Newsom's affair was never such a big scandal as, say, Spitzer's or Clinton's - the first IIRC confessed, while the other two pussyfooted. Also it helps if someone else is in a scandal, because only one story can be top of the news cycle at a time...

So, folks, when you get caught at being a hypocrite, the thing to do is to make a public confession, and sound at least somewhat contrite.

Note that this only helps if your scandal involved consenting adults (by which I mean under 18), or if the other party to the relationship is a private citizen. Otherwise, you're pretty much fucked.

edited 14th Mar '11 5:54:57 PM by Cojuanco

Honestly, I care more about the personal lives of the people trying to run my personal life, than those of random actors and notorious socialites. I realize that we all make mistakes, but to an extent the people making our laws do need to be a step above the rest of us, and things like this are a tad unnerving.

Of course, the counterargument there would be that, well, we elect our leaders, and it's an assumption that they originate more or less from the same general population (in theory) that elects them. If the general population is flawed despite trying its best to live up to certain standards, how can we expect elected officials to be any better?

Not to mention that we all, to a greater or lesser extent, are hypocrites. Doesn't make our principles more or less good.

edited 15th Mar '11 1:20:17 PM by Cojuanco