I myself am not a very religious person and am not against sinning in the position of a politician. If a person thinks that sin should never be committed in life, then that person should not be a politician. In order to be a strong politician, a person must be bold and adaptable as well as always being one step ahead of everyone else; and if the only way to get one step ahead is through strategic amoralism, then so be it.
Personally, I do not care if my leader is a nice person with a kindred spirit. What I look for in a leader is a strong person who is willing to do whatever is necessary to ultimately benefit the state. There is no being nice in politics. The nice guy is the guy who is easily manipulated and gets taken advantage of. Everyone always has their own self-interest at hand and if a person isn't willing to do wrong things to put him ahead, then he will fall behind.
I do not think it's important to actively threaten your citizens with physical punishment in order to instill fear in them. That's what laws are for; they serve as a threat to the people, which is what keeps them in place.
As far as the moral issue is concerned, I'm not saying that being evil is how a person ultimately ends up successful. I am saying that as long as the 'good' that comes out of the situation outweighs the 'bad' that is put into it, then it is acceptable. If you are able to get the job done and be successful, your people will learn to love you whether or not you act immorally or unethically.
Jack, I agree with most of your points, and I think that you have a very good grasp of what dirty hands is and why it is necessary in our society. I completely agree that politicians need to be able to dirty their hands to succeed. Politics is based around pleasing the people. It is not worth it to attempt to stick to a system of good morals if it means the people become unhappy and it is not in the best interest of society. Going back to the terrorist example, how happy would the population be if you decided to not torture the terrorist because it was against your morals, and he ended up setting off bombs killing hundreds of people? Obviously that approach is not going to work in the world of politics, but there is also something to be said for doing everything you can to refrain from these things. You talked a lot about doing whatever is necessary to achieve a goal. I agree with that, but there is no need to do something bad if there is some kind of alternative. I believe that when possible, it is important for politicians to have a set of morals and to use those morals for decision making. Under intense circumstances, or when dirty hands situations arise, that is when it is okay to explore how to "not be good."
ReplyDeleteI agree that a politician should do whatever it takes in order to achieve something, but I disagree that being nice is a bad trait. I believe that in order to be a good politician one needs to have the best interest of their constituents in mind, and this is a nice thing to do. It is nice for a politician to truly care about his or her constituents and to have a strict set of morals that they abide by. It is easy to get wrapped up in self-interest and power, and without morals and a kind personality one might do whatever it takes to get to the top, regardless of the best interests of their constituents. Yes, sometimes it is necessary to go against one's morals if the ends justify the means, but this does not mean that a good politician is never nice.
ReplyDeleteJack, I also agree with your post. There’s a reason why we only have one President of the United States of America at a given time. It’s not an easy job and if you look at photos of Barack Obama four years ago compared to now, he looks like he’s aged ten years instead of four. People don’t do it for the money; Mitt Romney isn’t running to get rich, but to have their names written in history. It’s a shady world out there with a lot of back stabbing going on and I don’t want the leader of the country that I live in to be a pushover or a human carpet.
ReplyDeleteThat’s why I agree with you when you said that you look for in a leader is a strong person who is willing to do whatever is necessary to ultimately benefit the state. If that means that he has to screw a couple of people along the way, then so be it, as long as the majority is benefited. An example is during World War II, when then President Franklin D. Roosevelt commissioned the detention of Japanese Americans after the events that occurred at Pearl Harbor. At that time, I would have agreed with the move because there could have been spies or something else similar, but I know my viewpoint is biased since I am not Japanese. It’s a “dog eat dog” world and I want to be led by the dog that would come out on top.
But the question is though, when do we know when our President has gone too far?
Although I agree with many of your arguments and believe that dirtying your hands as a politician is definitely necessary, there was one argument that you made that I don't really agree with. You said that "As long as one's actions have the states best interest in mind, then it is acceptable to do whatever is necessary to achieve that end goal." This may be true sometimes, but what if the actions that benefit one state means the complete destruction of another? I think there is a limit to which actions are justified and which ones are just reckless. Sure, there are times when a leader must dirty his hands for the betterment of the country, but if that means murdering people from other countries for benefits other than safety, than I don't think it is acceptable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that politicians need to have dirty hands but I agree with Steven when he says how far is too far? When we look at Presidents like Andrew Johnson who was impeached for a law that he broke. Was that law really that major that he needed to be impeached? Nixon spied on the Democratic party then lied about it. I think that he went to far with his presidential oversight and deserved to be impeached before he resigned. Clinton lied under oath. Was his lie harmless or was it enough where he should have been convicted and thrown out of office? The truth is the degree of which your dirty hands is very subject and it can be bad as long as you get caught. It is all in the risk to whether it is worth the punishment for the glory at hand. Certain acts of presidents are under wraps because they were never caught and we won't know what they did in order to preserve our country. I also agree with Marissa that a politician can also be nice. A politician needs that nice disguise at times in order to keep people away from his bad deeds. Every politician is personable and looks like a model citizen. It depends on how well they are able to mask those dirty hands before they are caught and ruin their political career.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the "good out weighting bad" hard to measure though? How can we trust one person to decide what's best for a state? Especially a person who is so eager and willing to get their "hands dirty." How can we decide when someone's ends don't justify the means? Some would say laws protect us from leaders overstepping their bounds, but we've had presidents break laws, just as Steven said in his comment. When presidents break laws, we try them, just like every other citizen, though impeachment. Even then, presidents have not been impeached because the Senate decides his means justified the ends. So is that how we measure what means are worth it? A body of fifty people, deciding what laws are worth breaking? But, not every law broken by a leader is decided during an impeachment trial; sometimes they are decided in a Supreme Court case. During this process nine people decide if someone's actions have gone against the constitution or not. Is nine peoples' opinions a sufficient number to decide what is just and unjust? Is 50? How do we make this call? Has our system really worked? The Supreme Court allowed for the internment of hundreds of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Was that really just? Then how do we decide?
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteI also believe that the mark of a good politician is his ability to "get the job done," however I do not think that this absolutely coincides with getting his hands dirty. You mention that a politician who "fails to take devious actions" that are against his morals will get taken advantage of. This situation may be unfavorable in the short term, and a politician who is willing to sink to the lows that others are not will probably have an edge in that scenario. This same politician, however, probably will carry this reputation for better and for worse. "Getting the job done" is important in a case-by-case basis, but it is also important to remember re-election and favors. Politics is a complicated game and an incumbent who gained a reputation for getting his hands dirty at the drop of a hat will most likely have stepped on some toes in the process. Even if this shrewd politician shares your goals and is willing to get his hands dirty to get the job done, what good will that do you or him if he can't hold power in the long run? How useful is a dirty-handed politician who can't win an election? Many politicians use favors as a means to push their interests through, and favors are a result of reciprocity. Somebody that is always looking out for themselves is not going to be getting much help from others, and politics is not an every-man-for-himself game. I agree that it is okay for a politician to get his hands dirty, but it is necessary for this politician to keep the long-term in mind because, like you said, the end goal is having the good outweigh the bad in the long run.
I agree with you completely Jack. As a citizen of a country that is constantly involved in conflicts around the world, with organizations that persistently look for holes in our national defense, I would much rather have a leader who is willing to make the tough choices that are unpopular, to ensure the safety of his or her fellow countrymen. They are after all put in that position to make the tough choices that most of us dare not think about. The duty of a leader is to be the protector, not the friend.
ReplyDeleteI have always found it ironic when a new politician comes into a political race and makes promises of “ending the war” and having diplomatic talks with our enemies, which is lauded by the voters as a policy by a new challenger to bring peace to the world. Yet when that politician is inaugurated, he or she truly learns of what must be done to ensure national security. A great example is the administration of America’s current President, Barack Obama. Running in 2008, Obama promised to “close Guantanamo Bay,” “end the ruthless killings by the drone strikes,” and “get America out of the Middle East.” It is now 2012, in which Guantanamo is still open (in fact by cousin is stationed there as I type), drones are being used to hunt down all sorts of terrorists including American-born ones, and while presence in Afghanistan is drawing down, the participation in another war came in Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya) in 2011. The point of this example is no matter what a person’s ideology is or what he or she said before, once that person is put in a leader position he or she will have to make the choices that they never thought they would have to make.
Preach Jack!
ReplyDeleteThe world of politics is a nasty environment and to survive some unethical measures have to be taken. I am all for a leader who goes against the grain if he/she knows that the final outcome will end up benefitting the governed body of people who elected them in the first place. We as citizens have to put trust into our political leaders and have their back when hard decisions come to the front that need to be addressed. Elected officials are where they are because most of us don't want to deal with what they have to go through. Torture, orderings of assassinations, backstabbing, all things morally wrong in full light, but in hindsight, are rather quite "good" things. A key example of this is the ordering of the atomic bombs on Japan in the second World War. What a grotesque and morally devastating thing to do, but what if the go was never given? The death predictions for both the Japanese and Americans were much higher than the combined death toll of the two atomic bombs dropped. As a civilian, the idea of making such a heart wrenching decision that involves sticking one's hands in basically stinking, flaming and rotting excrements sounds horrific even with the known projections for more death in the end. But, as an elected politician who's job it is to dirty their hands for the betterment of a nation, that go had to be given by then President Truman.
Yes, a President cannot dirty their hands without reason behind it. That responsibility falls on the people of the nation to evict a crazed and power hungry madmen from his seat. Wrapping it all up, dirty hands, so long as they continue to reap good benefits, are a necessity in any form of politics.
I generally agree with this post. In the last post, however, you say that “as long as the 'good' that comes out of the situation outweighs the 'bad' that is put into it, then it is acceptable”. I would say, though, that if your actions bring about a positive outcome, in a manner that you intended them to, then if you did something that might be considered bad in the course of your actions, it should not be considered bad. Talking in terms of morally good and bad actions makes it hard to express, but I would say that there is right, wrong, and unfortunate. If the sum total of your actions brings about a positive outcome as intended, then everything you have done is right, and anything “bad” within what you’ve done is unfortunate, but nonetheless right. Of course this assumes that you could not have acted differently in such a way that the number of unfortunate things done is significantly less or the outcome is significantly more right. The positive outcome would probably also have to be positive enough so that any unfortunate actions taken would not outweigh it in their intensity. This may just seem like changing terms for no reason, but I prefer it in these terms because actions that are necessary to bring about a positive outcome do not get labeled as morally wrong, since it seems wrong to me to call something wrong if you have no choice but to do it if you want to have an outcome that is right.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that politicians should be willing to dirty their hands to accomplish their goals. I don't think that regular ethics and moral codes apply to the world of politics. However, I believe that the politician should have some sort of moral line or boundary that they should not be willing to cross. Otherwise, I believe that this individual would not have any sort of integrity. They would not be able represent or stand for anything. Furthermore, an individual with no morals compass will work toward achieving their own personal goals rather than the good of the people. Politicians should be a balance of good and bad. A good politician, must be a balance of good and bad. They must care (at least to some degree) about the needs of the constituents that they serve. They must also be "bad" and willing to make deals in order to achieve there goals.
ReplyDelete