August 20, 2007

I found compelling evidence that indicates there is a double standard.

Apparently the other day, a Republican presidential candidate, Mr. Giuliani, didn't want to answer a question from a person at a campaign stop about why he should be supported as a presidential candidate if his children don't support him as such. He said something to the effect of that was his personal life and to leave it alone.

On MSNBC, however, at least one anchor expressed the opinion that Mr. Giuliani was somehow obligated to answer the question.

Where is the double standard? If we're talking about the marital fidelity of a Democrat, that's part of the Democrat's private life, and it doesn't affect his public life, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for asking anything about that private life. If we're talking about disagreements on political positions within the family of a Republican, then that's part of the Republican's public life, and we get to ask as many prying questions as we want and gather all the sordid details.

I may be exaggerating the case: the MSNBC anchor wasn't necessarily aiming for sordid details (although if some had come out, probably they would've been announced with glee.) It can be argued that the question asked of Mr. Giuliani was a fair one.

All of this misses a very central issue, however: is there really such a thing as a public and a private life?

I'm not referring to the fact that a human will adopt certain social behaviors and roles, each set of habits slightly different from each other, when a person is in different location. A person will act differently in a church than in the office, and in yet another way at their home, and in yet another way at the beach. That is actually normal for humans, and arguably necessary and proper. I'm also not referring to modern man's tendency to compartmentalize their perceptions depending on the setting. That's also normal and to be expected.

What I am referring to is the idea that one can somehow isolate some of a person's actions in certain settings and call them a private life, and isolate the actions done in the remaining settings and call them a public life. Is it really possible to achieve so clean a separation?

I am unconvinced of that. It is not, after all, two different people we elect into a political office, one to handle the politician's private life, and one to handle the politician's official responsibilities. We elect one person to take on responsibility, and that one person continues their private life.

It may at this point be suggested that a judge can separate their own personal viewpoint from that of a case that they are judging. I am not so certain that this is true: or perhaps more accurately, adherence to that ideal is much less close and common than it was, and I'm not certain that humans were ever able to quite approach it. Today the Supreme Court, composed of the highest and most respected judges in the land, is given free reign to rewrite the Constitution according to a shadow (umbra.) Arguing that judges manage to separate their private and political lives is particularly unconvincing nowadays.

A person lies in private life. To some extent that may be a legitimately private affair. What if this person is seeking to be entrusted with informing the public of the state of the world? Are we sure the lying will remain private? If the person found it convenient or necessary to lie in private life, how can we be certain that the person will not capitulate to those pressures and lie in public life? If a man will cheat on his wife, should we put him in a position where he could cheat with our money? Should we be surprised that a woman who makes shady deals for financial gain will also perform shady maneuvers to hang on to political power?

Private life and public life are one and the same; strengths and deficiencies in the one flow through to the other. This is true no matter what political or religious affiliation a person possesses. We can't split ourselves into separate people to deal with each of the many different settings in our lives, and we shouldn't imagine our politicians capable of it either.