WHAT SHOULD THE MORAL STANDARDS OF POLITICIANS BE?

Does Democracy depend upon ideal men and women pursuing a selfless public good? Some in European cultures still don't quite understand why we impeached Bill Clinton for being a less than ideal human being while still being a good politician. Maybe it's because he told us to "read my lips: I did not have sex with that woman." Is it time we give up some of our parochial notions of perfect beings administering perfect politics to a more perfect nation? Is it too much to expect politicians to tell us the truth about govermental matters?

Look what happened to John Edwards' recent candidacy for president when his affair with campaign videographer Rielle Hunter leaked out. There was a question and answer period and a student asked if politicians needed to be held to higher moral standards. Edwards gave an indirect response. The Herald quotes Edwards as saying, "I don't think it's for the candidate to decide what's appropriate. It's something for every American to decide for themselves." Maybe it wasn't the cheating that made us say "Enough". Maybe it was the lying we couldn't stand.

The slander that Obama had to endure during the mudslinging of his campaign against the Republicans would have some argue that he is less than an ideal human being. Others would take offense at this, citing chance acquaintanceships. and personalities not under his control. How far are we willing to go in judging our candidates?

Since the days of Aristotle and Machiavelli, philosophers and theologians have questioned the relationship between the moral realm and the political realm. For Aristotle, the aim of politics is moral virtue. He wrote, "Politics takes the greatest care in making the citizens to be of a certain sort, namely good and capable of noble actions."

Machiavelli felt that "a prince, and especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things which are considered good in men, being often obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act against faith, against charity, against humanity, and against religion." He would have liked George W.

Do politicians have to hold to a loftier moral plain than other mortals, or are politicians allowed to have inferior standards of morality in order for democracy to flourish? "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's"
The constant onslaught of lies from the office of George W. Bush became a national joke. If George W. said something in clear, definitive terms, it was assumed by many that the opposite of the statement was true. There can be little or no respect for such a politician who speaks in doublespeak and lies to such a great extent. I don't particularly care about a politician's sexual moral conduct, just that when he tells us he is speaking the truth he speak it.

In this regard, yes, politicians, for the sake of our democracy, should be held to a higher moral standard in regard to telling the truth. He should say one thing and do that one thing.

We have already seen what lying about lying and then telling more lies can do to not only the state of the democracy but to our world relations as well. It is imperative that we have a leader that the people can believe is telling the truth and that our allies and even enemies can believe that he is telling the truth when he speaks of matters of state.