SOUNDING BOARD: We've come to expect certain negative behavior
Florida voters go to the polls today in what could be a decisive Republican primary election. Many will have weighed this question: Should perceived moral and ethical lapses in a candidate matter? Newt Gingrich almost certainly has the experience to run our national government, but he also has been married three times -- and had an extramarital affair with his current wife, Callista, while still married to his previous wife, Marianne.
Should that matter? We're trying to elect/re-elect a president who can lead us out of these economic doldrums, protect our security and champion American values. Do we also need a marriage role model? We asked members of The Californian's Sounding Board for their take on the issue.
***
While "flamboyant" and "fierce debater" may describe Newt Gingrich's personality and political style, these are qualities that appeal to the media circus, not ones that qualify him to take on the sobering responsibility of leading America in these difficult times. The facts of his personal behavior and political career raise great concerns for me about whether he would be able to act ethically, and with integrity, on national and international issues.
I'm old-fashioned -- I think what we need in a president is "wisdom" and "statesmanship." Unfortunately, the current political party system is producing candidates who are great at fundraising and rabid partisanship, but haven't a clue how to govern effectively, because that requires cooperation and compromise, and working within the "establishment." That's just another name for government, and if you're running for president, you're asking to be "top dog" within the Washington establishment, no matter how your campaign tries to "spin" you as an outsider. And, come on, winning the South Carolina primary inspires you, Mr. Gingrich, to reflect on statehood for the moon? Excuse me? "We have serious problems, and we need serious people ... and your 10 minutes is up." -- "The American President" with Michael Douglas.
Jenell W. Mahoney of Bakersfield is a retired Christian minister who served in the pulpit for more than 30 years.
***
Should ethics and morality matter in the selection of the president of the United States?
"Synergy" is defined as a process wherein the actions of two separate circumstances, if taken together, produce a result that is greater than the sum of the two circumstances. That is, it is not "one plus one equals two" but "one plus one equals three."
When a swollen ego and high levels of testosterone occupy the same body, the synergistic effects can be viewed as immoral in monogamous societies, but quite acceptable in societies that embrace multiple marriages. Newt Gingrich was perhaps born into an inappropriate society for his synergies to be accepted.
The question of ethics looms larger for the welfare of the United States. The pain and anguish of several ex-spouses pales in the light of the effects of misrepresentation, influence peddling, pandering to special interests and myopic egomania that can endanger millions of Americans, as it has in the past and for which we are currently paying a national price. Given a choice, I will take a highly ethical president with at least a modicum of morality. I hope we have such a choice in the Republican Party in 2012.
David Cothrun of Taft is president emeritus of Taft College.
***
Morals and ethics in politics? Sounds like a contradiction. It's hard to point to many good examples in government. Instead we see more clearly examples of political posturing and secret dealings that compromise the common good. Guilt is not narrowly confined, but widespread in both parties.
But then we have a separate issue of private, personal morality. The news media do a good job of exposing guilt at this level also: who's cheating on his spouse, who's pictured bare-chested on the Internet, who's discovered coming out late at night from a gay nightclub, etc. This is where the matter gets murky. There are those who are tarnished on this private level, yet are capable of the highest public service. And there are others who are squeaky clean personally yet are ineffective as public servants, or even dangerous or phony, straight as a gun barrel morally but just as empty as one spiritually.
So what do we do? History has shown us that some of the most effective past leaders have had serious personal morals flaws. If we were to demand an A-plus in personal morality for all future political figures, we might deprive ourselves of some great leadership. Anyone with a past flaw nowadays may never try to lead us in fear of public exposure. This invites mediocrity to rise to the top. In considering the worth of potential leaders, may we be guided by wisdom and practical sense and not just misled by judgmental attitudes, labels and rumors.
Bob Schwartz is a retired pastor who served more than 40 years in California and Nevada.
***
Let's be honest with ourselves for once. As a nation -- as a species -- high moral fiber is not something we generally expect from politicians. We accept a general bent in our political leaders toward moral corruption because we, deep down, believe that only the morally corrupt seek higher positions of power and authority. We continue to fixate on our leaders' personal corruption because this is where the national media places its focus; after all, nothing sells commercial spots better than a good smear campaign. In the end, it may not be the corruption itself that keeps us watching, but the sensationalism of the train wreck that we cannot tear our eyes away from. All hope for meaningful leadership bleeds away as we are sucked into this constant state of "innuendo" that, really, we have no business knowing! Does a man's sex life dictate how he might lead? Does a woman's fidelity to her children and family prove her loyalties to our country? We hang on to our puritanical beliefs unconsciously when we know how backward and discriminatory the Puritans of our history were.
It would be much more beneficial -- and enlightening -- if our media detailed how our politicians seemed to flip-flop on every issue according to how the polls judge their popularity. Catalog for us how many times Newt Gingrich or President Obama said they would absolutely do/vote/sign one way then violate that public oath to their people by actually doing the opposite. Here we might learn where the nature of their true loyalties -- and thus leadership qualities -- lie.
Karen Ernst of Bakersfield is a high school English teacher.
***
As the Republican primary heats up, one has to consider background (past actions) when trying to assess what that particular candidate likely would bring to the White House. Newt Gingrich started getting serious national attention when he produced the 10-point list that he called the Contract With America. Only one item on that list was completed. He proved himself bombastic, egocentric and unable to lead his own party members in Congress. His ethics violations were so severe that even his friend, Bill Thomas, voted to censure and fine him.
Gingrich has been called "anger that is out of control," "listens to no one" and "only involved in a project if it be a profit to him." He has plenty of time to socialize "off the reservation."
A few years ago the movie "The American President" included a scene where the lead character clashed with a probable opponent who raised a question about the president's character. The president replied "being president is all about character." Americans need to think about limits. When fishing you can get five fish, while hunting one deer. There are limits on quail, pheasant, etc. What are the limits for marriages and infidelity? Newt is up the three. Anyone who plays sports will tell you that a cheater is always a cheater, no matter what is at stake. Why should anyone give Newt a pass?
Robert Mosser of Bakersfield is a physician.
