Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but there's another aspect that often goes overlooked: in the modern age, what constitutes "corruption"?
Put another way: How much are we willing to forgive to get the best person for the job (or, how much would moral turpitude of some level actually reflect on ability to govern)? (See: Geithner, Timothy)
|
I think you have to look at individual cases for answers, and you have choose the areas of behavior that you're really going to let affect your evaluation.
Personally, I'd also consider the person's reaction to whatever the failing was. While I'm kind of amazed that we'd get a Sec. of Tres. with previous tax problems, his reaction to the issue was well-handled in my opinion and didn't make him seem unethical. If you've ever screwed up your taxes, you can see how it could happen and it wouldn't really mean you were dishonest or even particularly careless. But it's still weird that you could go on to run the US Treasury. I kind of want more of an anal retentive accountant type there, with apologize to all accountants who might read this.
I think what bothers me with adultery is that it seems to almost always involve an expectation of getting away with breaking a pretty public vow. If you're willing to be deceitful in this one area, why would a reasonable person assume you'd be honest in other areas? And marriage is purely between the two people involved or it wouldn't have the cultural significance that it has.