What to tell the children...?

In relation to Michaela's post on morality in public life, I wish to offer a few of my own reflections. I came upon an article speaking about how many of our high school students are quite desensitized to the actions of our current and past politicians. The article, from CNN starts:

Gil Rosa's high school students were young children when Bill Clinton's trysts with Monica Lewinsky threatened his presidency.

A decade later, the news that Gov. Eliot Spitzer was caught consorting with high-priced hookers left students in his social studies class largely unfazed.

"My kids are desensitized," said Rosa, who teaches at School Without Walls in Rochester, New York. "They're like, 'Whatever."'

The personal lives of our country's leaders have desensitized our youth to major actions of immorality. I query whether this reality should be playing a larger role in our decision this election year.

Watching the tape of Spitzer speak nationally about his disgraceful actions was sad enough, even more revealing was seeing his wife standing supportively behind him. Watching this reminded me (as did this article) of the unfortunate role that Hillary Clinton took during the impeachment effort of her husband due to his lewd actions with various female associates. In my view, and I feel many people's views, standing by an individual who commits a grave immoral action, supports and at some level condones that action. 

So, I want to reiterate the question posed below, and add to it: How much should a person's personal choices play into their electability and ability to run the United States of America (in relation to moral choices)? and More specifically do we want a President who condones actions that desensitize our youth to the inexcusable moral choices of our leaders?

The rest of the article provides a rather lame (for lack of a better word) effort to prepare parents to speak with their children about prostitution and extramarital relations, as realities their children may be confronted with for the first time these past weeks. It would be nice to live in a world where we are shocked by prostitution rings and Presidential scandals. It would be nice to sleep at night knowing that 5 year old girls are not being sold as sex slaves in Thailand for $5.00 each. However immoral choices are being made that discredit the importance of sexuality in our society and create jaded citizen throughout the world. Can we trust a leader who condones immoral acts of their spouses to work against similar injustices in the world? Hopefully their experiences have transformed their views of these acts, instead of desensitized them to the extreme danger these individuals' acts have upon our society, especially our impressionable youth.  

The Moral Scandal

The Moral Scandal
With the resignation of Eliot Spitzer, governor of New York, a question arises that was much discussed before Republican Candidate, Rudy Giuliani, dropped out of the presidential primary: does a politician’s personal moral track record matter?

JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr. and many more of America’s “finest” leaders have a record of infidelity (not to be confused with a history of engaging with prostitutes). It appears, then, that such things don’t play a role in their ability to lead…but what about our international image?

The “Ugly Americans” image rings in the ears of many American voters today. My Grandmother (a non-political type) tells me how much she dislikes “being hated by other countries” (B. McGarvey c. July 2006). Be it the French or the Jihad, how much does our leaders’ example matter to the global community?

Apparently, a lot. Time Magazine quotes Osama Bin Laden saying, “Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America.” Who is represented America more prominently than our politicians? In 1997 CNN quoted Bin Laden saying, “We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical.” Who runs the American government? With Middle Eastern crisis abounding at the hands of our political leaders, I conclude that YES, the moral fiber of our elected officials matter.

More Torture Talk

In an article covering the recent failure of the House of Representatives to override Bush's veto of a bill to limit the Unites States' use of torture, at least two representatives used the language of morals/values:

"We are on stronger ground ethically and morally . . . when we do not torture," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said in closing the debate. "Our ability to lead the world depends not only on our military might but on our moral authority."

"Torture is no proper tool in the arsenal of democracy," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) "If we abandon our American values, we lose who we are as Americans. . . . And if the administration and all of its apologists . . . continue to force America to abandon our values, we will lose the war." Torture, he said, "is not only un-American, it is ineffective."

In Pelosi's comment, we hear a strong call to uphold our country's moral and ethical authority. Active use of torture as an interrogation method undermines that. In Doggett's comment, he uses the language of "values" in both a general and political sense.

What I find particularly interesting here is the argument about what it means to be "American" or "un-American." Doggett and Pelosi both seem to say that to truly uphold our country's authority as a moral and democratic agent in the global world, we cannot go around torturing people. Undoubtedly, those who remain focused on protecting the U.S., such as Peter Hoekstra, argue that torture is a necessity:

:Noting that waterboarding has not been used for five years, Hoekstra (R-Mich) denounced the delay in "doing what is necessary in giving the tools to the intelligence community to keep us safe."

This got me thinking about the Cavanaugh reading from last week. He argues that the nation-state "has found its solution to the problem of pluralism in devotion to the nation itself." Unlike what Murray had believed would happen, the nation-state has grown to a huge size and all associations of civil society (including churches) have decreased. Additionally, according to MacIntyre, as quoted by Cavanaugh, "the nation-state presents itself as a repository of sacred value that requires its citizens to be ready to kill and die"--and apparently torture--"on its behalf." As Cavanaugh cites, Carolyn Marvin goes so far as to argue that “nationalism is the most powerful religion in the United States."

So what do we make of Pelosi's call for moral authority and Doggett's claim that torture is un-American? Who are the "real Americans" in this scenario? Those who unquestionably uphold the right of a nation-state to torture, in the name of national security? Or those in opposition of torture, in the name of American principles? Has nationalism/patriotism become an unofficial form of religion?