The non-judgemental, new, American politics

Why would anyone want to go into politics in the 21st century? Look at the personalities who run our communities, provinces, states and nations around the globe. If they’re not corrupt, they’re immoral or just plain bumbling. Ok, a slight exaggeration, but we hold our politicians and public figures generally to an incredibly high standard. In the US on Saturday — during the latest stage in the never-ending war to find a Republican to challenge President Barack Obama — Newt Gingrich won decisively, particularly amongst social conservatives. This is the segment of Republicans who are die-hard campaigners against concepts such as gay marriage, because it somehow diminishes the sanctity of marriage. And yet, they swung overwhelmingly for Newt, despite the fact that he left two previous wives after they were diagnosed with cancer and then MS, and despite a major interview with the second wife on Thursday claiming Newt wanted an “open marriage”. [caption id=“attachment_189990” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Republican U.S. presidential candidate and former House Speaker Gingrich gestures during during his victory speech at his South Carolina Primary election night rally in Columbia, last night. Reuters”]  [/caption] So, a decidedly personally flawed candidate convinced a segment of voters, who are convinced Obama is Muslim because he isn’t “godly” enough. Now the battle for the Republican nomination could be framed in the next leg in Florida by who is the bigger defender of capitalism. In Canada, the ruling Conservatives and their supporting bloggers have been going after a rival for having dual citizenship with France, as somehow not being patriotic enough. Most politicians and public figures, even the most corrupt ones, have some sort of convictions or underlying moral principles by which they lead their lives. For some, it’s organised religion; for others, science; and for others, personal morals learnt from family, community and society at large. In a digital age, where everyone can have their own blog, we increasingly judge our public figures not by wider standards or morals, but by our own relativistic ones. Newt Gingrich is not a shining example of traditional Christian morals, based on his approach to marriage. But he doesn’t have the WRONG flaws, such as leaving a wife for another man, or changing religions. And his chief rival, Mitt Romney, is perceived as being too moderate and the wrong denomination of Christianity — Mormonism. Conservatism, like any part of the political spectrum, is in the eye of the beholder. If you can’t please anyone with your morals and actions, should you bother trying to please anyone? You could become the ultimate moral relativist and just do whatever you like, holding yourself to only your own personal standards. But except, perhaps amongst anarchists, that wouldn’t garner many votes. And so we demand politicians be somehow whiter than white, perfect beyond perfection. Held to such high standards, is it any wonder they don’t live up to expectations? That’s part of the bitterness of the US electorate directed this year against Obama — they fell for the rhetoric that he was a fantastic potential president, only to be disappointed when the reality of governing made it much harder to satisfy ideals. Leaders have to lead and inspire a collective, each with group or individual moral codes and principles, something like “red-line” standards you must not cross. But because each of us believes our own standards are the correct ones, we’re not interested in those of others. If you are against gay marriage, you don’t want to consider someone who favours it. If you want to see a leader with a Bible in his hand every day, you may not consider the views of fellow citizens who don’t. The Canadian politician Stéphane Dion in a speech last year, said that: “The democratic ideal encourages all the citizens of a country to be loyal to each other, regardless of language, race, religion or regional considerations.” America is nearly ungovernable at this point because no politician is good enough for any individual or group. Other countries are drifting in that direction, all because we hold our politicians to a personal standard, and not a democratic one. There are some personal flaws that are irredeemable, or actions while in government - such as corruption - that cannot be explained away. If, however, we can ask our politicians how they will lead all, how they will inspire all and how their personal morals can aid them in government, then we may be able to find a more constructive and healthy politics. And we may get a wider selection of people willing to put their personal morals and principles on show while running for political office. All politicians are individuals. But representative democracy means those individuals must represent everyone, and all those competing morals. We need to remember more what representation means, and celebrate the diversity of those morals our politicians must win over each day.