Wednesday, July 24, 2013

I don't trust Anthony Weiner

Now that Anthony Wiener has been caught in a nearly identical scandal to the one from two years ago, I am no longer conflicted about dropping all support and respect I o had for him.

Last time I wrote that he had taken a few principled stances I admired but his incompetence in dealing with the scandal revealed himself to be unfit for service. Since then I have read last month's New York Times piece that made him look like a useless, glory-hogging showboat who couldn't be bothered to pass actual legislation. Seeing him engage in more infidelity at the same time he was supposedly making amends for the betrayal of his marriage sealed it for me.

Democrats are so forgiving of their politicians who betray their spouses that it's almost a positive thing to be caught. Bill Clinton, John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer have no shortage of supporters who say their affairs are irrelevant to their performance as a politician.

Like many conservatives, I see infidelity as a warning sign for political corruption. It's not always true, but it's disturbing to expect strangers to put their faith in someone when their own wife can't trust them. This is far from a revolutionary idea, but I want to contrast it with what I see as a parallel.

But, like many progressives, I also see the denial of evolutionary science as a signal that the candidate does not belong in office. Like the infidelity marker, creationism may not directly affect many policy decisions (save for public school scientific standards) but it implies the candidate's thought process is fundamentally flawed and they should not be trusted with power.

Neither of these issues prove any candidate would perform poorly in office, but both of them reveal troubling issues that need to be addressed.

1 comment:

  1. "it implies the candidate's thought process is fundamentally flawed and they should not be trusted with power."

    I'm not saying I disagree on the whole, but it doesn't indicate a flawed thought process, it indicates a thought process that is different from yours and mine. If it's evidence of a flawed anything, it's evidence of flawed initial conditions or assumptions that lead to a flawed conclusion.

    But I guess even there it is all relative.