Sun 15 Jun 2008
Professor Sam Crane explains:
Some attention is being drawn to John McCain’s first marriage and the apparently shabby manner in which he ended it. Andrew Sullivan blogs on it and makes the point that in a liberal society, one that draws a distinction between personal and public life, this should not matter:
This is what liberalism allows for: it can simply say that an immoral private life may be a negative, but it is not to be conflated with much more salient matters of public import. With political liberalism, you can have your moral cake and your politics too.
Sullivan is engaged in a debate with American conservatives, especially religious conservatives, for whom personal moral failings should matter in presidential elections. I would simply want to add that Confucians would agree here with conservatives: how we lead our personal lives is an expression of our daily moral commitments. If we cannot live up to our familial duties, then we are not worthy to assume positions of political leadership.
Indeed. Read the whole thing.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Without the aid of direction by “thinkers”, the typical voter unwittingly practices Existentialism rather than Confucianism in his votes (and it is not foreseeable that he will change that approach) - by assigning such weight to such factors as he sees fit at the moment.
June 15th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Yeah- the “family values” candidate that left his wife for a woman half her age. I am not buying it either, David.
And what about the Webb GI bill that McCain oposses? “Support the troops”? How can anyone who beleives in education “Support the troops” but not want those who have served and have the merits to be able go to a place like Williams? America owes it to itself to educate these young people. They have earned it.
David- Could you look one of your Marines in the eye and tell him or her that they cannot go to Willaims because of money, after multiple tours in combat zones?
A yellow sticker on a car, not a patriot makes!
June 15th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Speaking of patriotism, is anyone working on the list of Ephs in service, so we can going on with supporting, on an individual level, our Ephs who are serving (in addition to whatever else people are doing to improve conditions and benefits for veterans in general)?
“DK and others who would know: it is probably a very good time to post again the list and addresses of Eps who are serving, so that we at EphBlog can reach out to them. And what about those in uniform who are not stationed in Afghanistan or the Middle East (even those who are stateside)? Can someone get us the contact information so that those who want to can reach out to them, too?” posted 6/09/08 under “Why Ephs Don’t Serve” (with an additional request for contact information for those with strong Eph connections like the Krisoffs (Nate’s father and brother) and Jonathan’s brother)
June 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Adding to my post (comment #3): PTC raised the issue of the service members’ privacy on another thread. Just so it doesn’t get lost, please add my response to the bottom of my comment requesting a list of Ephs in service.
“PTC -
I cross-posted on another thread. You are right about their privacy and I’m just looking for some way for us to get through to them.
In the past, I think someone kept a list and we could individually contact him. That would work fine for me. I just want to be able to do something for those with a Williams connection who are serving.”
June 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I believe that we should be very careful about passing judgement on people based on parts of their lives of which we simply can’t know all the details. How often have we seen the finger pointed by those who fall subject to the same circumstances?
However, I admire those who manage to weave a strong sense of love and faith… and right and wrong, through every aspect of their lives… quietly setting the example of leadership in the doing of it.
That said, my thoughts and prayers today, are with the friends and family of Tim Russert.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Explains why they’ve adopted so well to the controls of the Communist Party…
June 15th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
talk about a cheap shot!
June 16th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
quote: “If we cannot live up to our familial duties, then we are not worthy to assume positions of political leadership.”
If you consider the two presidential candidates of 1960, Richard Nixon was undoubtedly a better family man than JFK. But who ultimately proved to be the better political leader ?
June 16th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Why can’t we get a Harry Truman.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Question mark.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Why can’t we get a Barack Obama? Oh yeah, that’s right, we can.
All I know is, the GOP has based its temporary ascension on demonizing gays in swing states, on bashing Clinton for his infidelity, and on trumpeting so called “family” values (so long as that “family” is white, mainstream Christian, heterosexual, and doesn’t try to push those crazy beliefs like evolution on America’s youth). That all came back to bite them in the ass once Americans learned that it was all hypocratic bunk, that the folks pushing their values down America’s throat were themselves values-deficient. It is not so much the imperfection, a plauge that affects us all, as the unbelievable hypocrisy (and of course it does not just apply to the GOP, Spitzer is probably the worst example).
What I don’t get is why McCain has gotten a free pass. While a few of Jeremiah Wright’s decontextualized, isolated statements from three decades of preaching (and again, this isn’t Obama, it is one of his mentors / former supporters) get blown up into this huge national story, the press has completely ignored the fact that McCain’s model wife was disfigured by an accident, and he responded by screwing around until he met the right young, gorgeous, rich woman to replace her with. Which speaks more about someone’s character? Yet which story got hours and hours of airtime, and which received virtually none? It’s really incredible. But that’s what happens when someone like McCain kisses the media arse for most of his 95 years in office — they cut him slack they won’t cut any other candidate, even Barack. I want Barack to take the high road, but if the right keeps harping on irrelevant crap like flag pins and Jeremiah Wright and Michelle Obama being a little irreverant and so on, then McCain’s infidelities are ABSOLUTELY fair game and they need to come out in the mainstream press and be asked at debates and all the other crap Obama has had to put up with.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
hypocritical, I meant, not hypocratic …
June 20th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Cindy McCain has attacked Michelle Obama multiple times. So yeah, this post is a cheap shot- but when a drunk with a bottle comes up to you and attempts to steal your wallet, you do not stand around and wait for the police- you steal the bottle and cut his throat with it.
This will be a very negative election. I cannot think of a single voting demographic that is voting for John McCain. Not one. The only thing he has is votes against Obama. That means it will be all about trying to drive up Obama’s negatives.
Obama has multiple bases of support, who give him a lot of $, and who are going to very enthusiastically campaign for him and pull the lever. McCain has smear. His reputation as a maverick has been destroyed over his policy postion changes (immigration, social security, campaign finance reform) and 95% voting record with President Bush. The only thing he has left is to go negative, and this time, the bloggers and the Democratic 527s will not be waiting for negatives to develope before they attack and counter attack. Stand by for a lot more of these kinds of attacks.
I must admit, I was surprised to see one headlined here on Ephblog, especially with David as an author. This post is a pig with lipstick on it, I agree. But we are in the mudd this season!!
Cheers DK!
June 20th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
PTC,
I was talking about Vermando’s cheap shot. interestingly enough, Michelle Obama has better poll numbers than Cindy “I steal recipes” McCain.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Politics surely brings out the worse persons and also the worst in the better persons. Pardon me while I withdraw from the human race until Thanksgiving.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Frank- sure does.
SHAME ON YOU RORY!!! It’s not Cindy “I steal recipes”, It’s Cindy “I steal Narcotics from childrens charity” McCain… get it right man!
June 20th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Hey Rory-
Have you read up on the new prescription drug plan that McCain is putting a working group together for?
He has enlisted the help of his wife, Cindy—- and they are going to have a great media push for the program too, through Rush Limbaugh! That and the defense of marriage act, are going to be on the top of the agenda!
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:47 am
The circumstances of the end of John McCain’s first marriage with Carol do not reflect favorably on John McCain’s character.
Since liberals choose to overlook candidates’ personal lives as a reflection of their character, then conservatives ought to as well, just to level the playing field.
On another matter, it is hard to understand why McCain or Bush do not support the new GI bill sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb.
There is no question that the GI Bill is a excellent investment in capable people - veterans who need the help and who gave their all - not to mention the fact that just about every taxpayer-funded recruiting commercial on TV offers enlistees a college education. Are we going to make good on that deal?
The good news is that supporters of the bill believe they have the votes to override Bush’s veto (and John McCain’s “no” vote.)
When is McCain scheduled for Presidential Economics 101 and will it include a section on pandering for votes with gas tax holidays?
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 am
Yeah, the gas tax thing is infuriating. Bush’s recent radio address on this topic was perhaps the stupidest and most offensive speech of his Presidency (and that would be a mean trick). Whoever wrote the speech made it seem like all that is stopping gas prices from plummeting this summer is those mean Democrats who won’t let us dip into the magic oil reserves just waiting to be instantaneously provided to the American consumer — no mention of the fact that, by the time those reserves are finally exploited (years and years away), we’d better all hope oil is largely obsolete as a primar power / fuel source, or we are all screwed on multiple levels in any event. I’d like to THINK the American people aren’t stupid enough to think that a gas tax or additional drilling will have any material impact on prices in the near future, but I am not so sure.
In any event, count me as one of those “elitist” liberals who think gas is not currently overpriced, considering (a) it is still half the price of gas in Eurpoe, (b) gas SHOULD probably cost substantially more than a gallon of milk considering the cost of extraction and its cost on the environment, (c) it took gas prices to get to this point for people to finally stop buying suv’s and hummers, (d) people may actually push government to invest in public transit and alternative energy sources as it should have been for the last decade at least. Unfortunately, because we are all self interested and short-sighted, none of the absolutely crucial LONG TERM solutions to our oil dependency will ever being in earnest until people feel pain at the pump. It sucks it has to be that way, but that is the reality. Better to give people below a certain income further tax rebates or something rather than artifically reduce the price of oil, which if anything is still priced too low in this country. Get up to to European level prices and watch the sales of small cars and hybrids explode, auto manufacturers invest a ton of R&D into high-efficiency vehicles, and see a lot more high-density transit oriented development, all of which should be happening anyway.
Sorry for the off-point rant …
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:38 am
I’ll count you as elitist! One of the biggest problems with gas’ price rise is its disproportionate effect on low and middle income families (beyond the standard problems of taxing/raising prices on a staple, it is low income families who often have to travel particularly far in particularly inefficient cars to get to work). Think of it as the regressive tax solution to our gas addiction when we really should be pushing for a more progressive tax solution (i don’t know–maybe make hybrid cars $10,000 cheaper than comparable models via tax incentives, etc. I don’t know the details)
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I realize that, hence my proposal for tax credits or other ways to offset the disproportionate hit to income. But just because someone is low income, that doesn’t lower the environmental impact of driving gas guzzlers long distances. we have to start shifting policy towards public transit and alternative fuels rather than short-sighted near term fixes to gas prices that will only prolong our national addiction to petroleum.