While indeed there is a chance, I don't see it as a basis to remove them from their position. However if proof that they are untrustworthy in their work comes to light(such as accepting bribes etc.), then I think they should not be trusted.
Sexual desire is a very strong force, and can lead many people with good intentions astray. Just because an official succumbs to this doesn't mean that they will accept bribes, lie in office, etc.
True...
Lets step back a bit and consider the impact of an affair.
A public official commits adultery. We'll assume it's in one of the states where it's not illegal. The media blows this way out of proportion, anyway, slanting the public eye towards calling for his resignation. He then resigns.
Was it the media's fault he resigned? Or his fault, for cheating in the first place? Logically speaking, it's the latter, although your argument does bring up a good point in the meddling of the media on politics which is pretty much at the heart of this topic. Perhaps its the media that needs to butt out, and stop glamorizing the personal lives of public officials, turning them into pseudo-celebrities and thus applying the same lip service.
Now let us consider that same public official's ... official duties, and assume for the moment that his affair is NOT found out by the public. Does his affair jeopardize his job? Does he hold any security clearances that are protected under spousal law that are not protected otherwise? He could be a senator on the armed services committee, or maybe he's a joint chiefs member... is having them run around on their wife good or bad for national security? I'd summit it's dangerous even to allow even the slightest breech of that type. And so no one plays favorites, if you're a public official, you're held to the same expectations in the public's eye, the media's eye, and in practice.
Now let us consider the mindset of an adulterer in general. Having cheated myself, I can attest it does have a lot to do with sexual desire. It's almost never about true fulfillment. David Letterman recently had inter-office relationships come to light, and he.. made light of them, very professionally I may add. He's not even a public official (though I think he'd make a great mayor or something) and yet had this same thing come to light about... a mayor, or what have you, yeah, up in arms people would be. This is because... we look to our public officials for a check and balance of our own moral fortitude. It's not enough to go to Church for instance. We need real world examples of the 'the right thing to do' and when officials have affairs, seemingly abusing their power (it's not a hard stretch to imagine Clinton being all 'yo, I'm the president, down on me *****), our illusions are shattered, and this should not go unpunished, should not be ignored. After all, if a Senator can cheat all he wants and get away with it, why can't everyone else?
Maybe it's just because I'm really tired, but I don't understand what you mean here. Please elaborate?
heh, actually I'm going to admit I really hated that source I was forced to cite, but I just cannot remember the original source material. It's from years ago, in my college intro to poli sci class... basically, Government is corrupt, so by taking a position within it, you're automatically corrupt even though you may not -personally- be corrupt you still are corrupt.
An example: I am elected to the HoR for my district. I get up to capital hill, where I find out my staff liaison to the white house has been secretly accepting bribes to keep certain legislation from being reviewed. Basically he literally takes the document and throws it at the bottom of the pile every few weeks so that it remains there. I catch him doing this, and prepare to fire him but just as I'm about to do so, the House leader taps my shoulder (hey, you can't fire so-in-so, -I- didn't give you permission to do that, you work for me, buster). "No, I work for the people!" yeah, that's idealism at work, real politics doesn't work that way, and next thing you know, my 1 term going on 2 is 1 term going on nothing because my days are over.
In essence (and this is highly debatable and off topic, really) there are no truly non-corrupt politicians, only non-corrupt people, and the longer you are in whatever office you're in, the more corrupt you may become, until finally, you are in fact committing acts of corruption yourself, not just looking the other way while others are doing it.
If adultery isn't illegal in Nevada, then it's not against the law. Apparently the law, does not see it as a big enough offense(Thomas Jefferson for example).
Also, I don't understand what you mean by "Moral Code." Lawmakers, who we put in office due to our shared views, make our laws. It is our job to hold them to their promises, or to choose a better lawmaker if they create corrupt laws.
It sounds like you're trying to argue that a legislative official who has done something that is not within your particular 'moral code', will make corrupt laws...which is a sweeping generalization. All legislative officials have done things they are not proud about, and have flaws on their record. By the above logic, all officials will be corrupt.
About Nevada: it's not illegal there, but as the public, we still recognize it as the wrong thing to do, and again Public Officials are put on a pedestal which means our expectations of their moral fortitude is higher.
About Moral Code: There is Law, then there is Moral Law (the laws of Moses, for example). We expect our lawmakers to be of the utmost moral character, because we don't want our laws being made by drunks, gamblers, womanizers, etc. This is idealistic to a fault, obviously, I'd be willing to bet most capital hill politicians are all three, lol That's not the point though, the point is in the Idealism, and that is what's threatened when a public official's deviance from morality is brought to light. -Moral- of this story? Cheat if you must, but dont. get. caught.
I disagree. President Kennedy has done a lot for the nation during the Cold War and he carried out his laws... despite having a mistress. Plus, I don't think presidents get a bigger break are much more intensely scrutinized than any other official, even if they are much harder to remove from office.
They are very scrutinized, however a good example would be Clinton's approval rating NOT dropping much if at all during his scandal. Everyone pretty much accepted that he got a blow job under the table by a staffer, and big F'ing deal, kinda thing. Had it been someone of less importance, however, the media spin would have been enough to get them to resign, as we are seeing now quite a bit. Take the male senator who resigned after being caught soliciting a young male over AIM (a staffer too). And he even stood atop a high cloud of anti-gay SPAM. Just goes to show that people aren't what they seem, and if they're so untrustworthy as to be saying one thing while doing another, it's better (for politics' sake) to oust them (even though technically, you or I are just as moral as the next guy or gal or as them). It's not about whether they deserve to be ousted for their bad decisions. Its about the destruction of the illusion of the perfect people that we elect based on their presentations of themselves, and trying to preserve that.
I don't necessarily think that's a good thing, mind you, but that's a different subject. If we want to segue into that, then sure... Should a Public Official's rubber-stamp persona be required to be down-to-earth and real, or high on a pedestal for others to gawk at?
