Hello All:
A few days ago in the comment thread for the Vote-No-Confidence Group, there was a debate about tolerating politicians who breached the public trust/ ethos by for example having affairs, conflicts of interest etc. I have wrote a lengthy responsive argument regarding this topic.
I would appreciate it if you visit my response here:
http://twurl.cc/177k — Examiner.com
and here:
http://bit.ly/vkwV1 — NowPublic.com (liberal strong hold)
Here is the teaser -
TO THE DEBATE - TOLERANCE OF BREACHES OF THE PUBLIC TRUST (in elected officials and Government Bureaucrats)
The topic of this debate revolves around tolerance and intolerance of moral, ethical, legal and political trespasses by elected officials. In this story, I may sometimes refer to these collectively as ”ethos* Further, I may refer to breaches of any one of these aspects of American ethos as Breaches of the Public Trust. Broadly the four major perspectives on this issue are:
1) Biblical Mandate - That we must permit/practice tolerance, because politicians have the same failings of average people (Let ye without sin cast the first stone);
2) Political Reality - That politics attracts a certain element of society with a propensity to, for lack of a more secular and less offensive term, sin;
3) Political Loyalty/alliance/allegiance/expediency - Some of these folks that ”sin” share our same political beliefs and/or party and therefore we should overlook their trespasses to achieve our political goals;
4) Zero Tolerance - If a Politician breaches the Public Trust, their oath of office, or otherwise betrays the moral, ethical and/or legal beliefs of their constituency, the constituencies support for them should end, period.
Before I say more, I wish to thank all of you TEA Partiers that posted on or discussed this issue with me. I appreciate your thoughtful, reasoned dialogue. It is so much more pleasant and constructive to discuss the issues fully and freely without it degenerating into personal attacks. To the extent possible, I am going to make my arguments in in favor of Zero Tolerance without attacking the other perspectives. Let whatever position that prevails, prevail upon its own merits. This, as opposed to the dismantling of its competitors, as a show of contempt for the intellectual dishonesty that has become political tradition in America these days.
With that back drop, I am for Zero Tolerance. I do not arrive at this position with religious considerations. I come to it from a practical perspective. My position evolves from the following beliefs, thoughts, arguments and premises:
Please visit the links above to read the rest of my argument!
PS I get money for hits at the first link, so I would appreciate the click!
Respectfully
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
