I have continued to reflect on veniality after 'Sinks', and I received a relevant email from a friend abot political candidates. Three candidates for office are presented, and you have to vote for one. Here they are-
I think for most people candidate C is the clear 'moral' winner. We demand of our candidates in these latter days that they be saintly in their restraint and in ahving some military record. Candidate C certainly satisfies these criteria.
Except that A is Roosevelt, B is Churchill and C is Hitler. Hitler was a remarkably abstemious man. Although he could be a courtly host and excused remarkable veniality in his subordinates such as Goering, Frank and Streicher he himself refrained from meat, drink and tobacco. He served extremely bravely and honorably in WW 1. And he not simly did not engage in adultery. There is at least some question whether he was a lifelong virgin. And he ordered millions killed, and gloried in the war he started, and held outrageous views of Jews, and blacks, and Poles, and Slavs.
All of this raises the question of the relationship of veniality to other moral values and leadership potential. In the US we ask that our candidates generally be married, monogamous, non-alcoholic, free of drugs and free of all but minor traffic offenses. We then pay no attention when they are egregiously lax with our money, do nothing except argue about social issues outside their proper venue, break their own operating rules and connive to keep campaign money and get re-elected.
In a financial sense, we are electing Hitler. These 'representatives' are superficially pure, but are perpetrating upon us a financial holocaust that unchanged and unchecked will leave our country weak and our children bereft. We are making the same essential decision as the German population did- voting for charismatic, seemingly pure men who turn out to be horrible.
It seems to me that physical veniality has little to do with administrative ability or governing vision. As is said in the movie 'Priest', why do we car what men do with their dicks? Why do we care that someone drinks themselves semi-conscious occasionally, or smokes a joint? It is claimed that these minor transgressions indicate a disrespect for morality and the law. Experience and history however suggest most strongly otherwise.
I donot see how we would be worse off with leaders who understood the desires of the flesh, and perhaps as a result had more respect for the needs and sufferings of the same. those who hold themselves as pure in front of the public have a distressing tendency to justify within themselves egregious behavior, or have a need to hide their veniality. Hence the preachers of mega churches who hide their homosexuality or their cavorting with prostitutes. And politicians who feel justified in ignoring the needs of their constituents while pressing for re-election.
And we do this to ourselves. We keep condemning politicians who get divorced, or have an affair, or admit to treatment for depression, etc, etc.
Jesus said let him who is without sin cast the first stone. We surely throw alot of stones at politicians who are just like all of us, and electing those who hold themselves above us as pure and then harm us. Maybe we should stop judging the fleshly failings of these candidates and look harder at their financial and executive experience.
Ted
Candidate A:
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists.
He's had two mistresses.
He also chain smokes
And drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B:
He was kicked out of office twice,
Sleeps until noon,
Used opium in college
And drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
Candidate C:
He is a decorated war hero,
He's a vegetarian,
Doesn't smoke,
Drinks an occasional beer
And never committed adultery.
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists.
He's had two mistresses.
He also chain smokes
And drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B:
He was kicked out of office twice,
Sleeps until noon,
Used opium in college
And drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
Candidate C:
He is a decorated war hero,
He's a vegetarian,
Doesn't smoke,
Drinks an occasional beer
And never committed adultery.
I think for most people candidate C is the clear 'moral' winner. We demand of our candidates in these latter days that they be saintly in their restraint and in ahving some military record. Candidate C certainly satisfies these criteria.
Except that A is Roosevelt, B is Churchill and C is Hitler. Hitler was a remarkably abstemious man. Although he could be a courtly host and excused remarkable veniality in his subordinates such as Goering, Frank and Streicher he himself refrained from meat, drink and tobacco. He served extremely bravely and honorably in WW 1. And he not simly did not engage in adultery. There is at least some question whether he was a lifelong virgin. And he ordered millions killed, and gloried in the war he started, and held outrageous views of Jews, and blacks, and Poles, and Slavs.
All of this raises the question of the relationship of veniality to other moral values and leadership potential. In the US we ask that our candidates generally be married, monogamous, non-alcoholic, free of drugs and free of all but minor traffic offenses. We then pay no attention when they are egregiously lax with our money, do nothing except argue about social issues outside their proper venue, break their own operating rules and connive to keep campaign money and get re-elected.
In a financial sense, we are electing Hitler. These 'representatives' are superficially pure, but are perpetrating upon us a financial holocaust that unchanged and unchecked will leave our country weak and our children bereft. We are making the same essential decision as the German population did- voting for charismatic, seemingly pure men who turn out to be horrible.
It seems to me that physical veniality has little to do with administrative ability or governing vision. As is said in the movie 'Priest', why do we car what men do with their dicks? Why do we care that someone drinks themselves semi-conscious occasionally, or smokes a joint? It is claimed that these minor transgressions indicate a disrespect for morality and the law. Experience and history however suggest most strongly otherwise.
I donot see how we would be worse off with leaders who understood the desires of the flesh, and perhaps as a result had more respect for the needs and sufferings of the same. those who hold themselves as pure in front of the public have a distressing tendency to justify within themselves egregious behavior, or have a need to hide their veniality. Hence the preachers of mega churches who hide their homosexuality or their cavorting with prostitutes. And politicians who feel justified in ignoring the needs of their constituents while pressing for re-election.
And we do this to ourselves. We keep condemning politicians who get divorced, or have an affair, or admit to treatment for depression, etc, etc.
Jesus said let him who is without sin cast the first stone. We surely throw alot of stones at politicians who are just like all of us, and electing those who hold themselves above us as pure and then harm us. Maybe we should stop judging the fleshly failings of these candidates and look harder at their financial and executive experience.
Ted
A thought provoking entry...
ReplyDelete-D-