Should politicans be held to a higher moral standard than the average American citizen? If the answer is "yes," then are we expecting our country's leaders to have greater moral integrity than you or I? Is it possible that what we really mean, is that politicians should be held more highly accountable for their moral conduct than you or I? These are puzzling questions to answer and before we do so, we need to define some key terms and gain a better understanding of just what the moral climate of our country looks like right now.
In order to consider whether politicians should be held to a higher moral standard, we must first define, "moral". The current climate in this country is one of "moral relativism." This means that our culture defines "morality" not as an absolute, but as a standard of right and wrong that changes, depending upon its context. In other words, a certain population might judge the morality of a particular behavior, not in the traditional sense, but based upon the prevailing attitudes that it is continually exposed to. If we subscribe to this meaning, then the standard of morality is not anchored in the idea that "wrong" and "right" is an unchanging norm, but in what the majority will tolerate.
That brings us to the question, "If politicians are to be held to a higher moral standard," whose standard should they be judged by? A traditionalist will likely suggest that a politician, as a leader, should not be guilty of drug abuse, sexual immorality or graft. But if we look at society's attitudes toward morality, the present political climate is becoming immune to feelings of disbelief or disgust that were once associated with allegations such as sexual misconduct while in political office. Eventually, society will become acculturated by the number of political indiscretions served up by the media to an audience who is, at that moment, already redefining its standard of morality because of its new acceptance of immoral behavior.
John Wesley was a visionary who was ahead of his time when he wrote, "What one generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace." In other words, if society ignores the immoral activities of our politicians, we will one day divorce a politician's personal life from his political life. We will do this because we will have moved beyond "tolerating" into "accepting" sexual immorality in the lives of those who hold public office. This is illustrated in the frequently heard comments like, "Politician and moral standard? Now there's an oxymoron!" Just how far have we come in this process already? The answer, of course, is that society is already moving rapidly toward acceptance. If this was not true, we would not be grappling with a question that looks askance at the idea of holding those in public office to a higher standard.
For the purposes of providing an answer to the question, "Should our politicians be held to a higher moral standard?" let's address the question by defining whose "moral standard" we are speaking of. By choosing my own, I can redefine the question in this way: "Should politicians be held to a higher standard of accountability?
On the basis of my moral stance, which I readily acknowledge has come from a higher place than where I sit; the answer is "Yes." Politicians should be held to a higher moral standard. They should be held to a moral code of conduct that holds them accountable for immoral acts like drunken and disorderly conduct, sexual pandering, or taking money for favors. For example: If Congressman X pockets twenty-five thousand dollars of a lobbyist's money and then votes in favor of the lobbyist's agenda, then Congressman X is guilty of graft and should lose the privilege of political office. A moral relativist will say, "That's not a big deal. It happens all the time." While he may be right in his assertion that it does happen frequently, he would be wrong in his conclusion that "it's not a big deal."
This doesn't mean that everyone else gets to have the morals of an alley cat. We aren't, however, talking about everyone else's morals. What we are trying to define is the relationship between personal morality and its impact on conduct in the political arena.
If a politician is unprincipled in his personal life, why would we expect him to put on a morally ethical cloak that he wears only when in the role of an elected official? Do we really believe that standards of right and wrong, whose ever they are, should be put on and taken of like an overcoat? If we do, then we are asserting that engaging in moral turpitude has no negative impact on what we do, professionally. If that's the case, then it doesn't matter even if the President does something morally reprehensible. So what if he is looked up and respected by countless young men and women who start out confused and end up believing that the notion of integrity is highly overrated?
When we look at the question of whether politicians should be held accountable to a higher standard, we must assert two truths:
1. Politicians, like it or not, are role models for a generation of young and women, and should conduct themselves according.
2. An irreconcilable conflict exists when moral character is seen as a duality that can be present, publically, without ever existing, privately, To believe otherwise, is to add to the list of what we will tolerate, disingenuousness.
When we contemplate these two big ideas, the answer to the question at hand, comes sharply into focus. There should, even must, be a moral standard that every politican should be held to. Not only that, but the standard must be grounded in an unshakeable conviction that what was "right" and "wrong" yesterday, will still be "right" and "wrong" tomorrow. A moral standard is needed; to demonstrate the qualities of character that can be emulated by our youth, and to provide the core of integrity needed to lead this country.