The Price of Eggs

What, exactly, does a politician's private life have to do with their fitness to govern? We've come a long way from the days of the Divine Right of kings and all that garbage. I say all that garbage because usually the Divine Right meant that kings could do pretty much whatever they wanted, rather than the mandate of heaven being only passed to those who were worthy, morally speaking. I digress.

We live in an age of bureaucracy, not an age of fiat. If someone is good at making laws, who cares whether he or she is slightly imperfect from a moral standpoint? I know I'm not perfect, and I want representation. And I'm pretty sure that even people seen as "moral" aren't perfect; in fact, believing yourself to be perfect is immoral, at least where I come from. Maybe it's different elsewhere.

Lawmakers should not, however, be above the law. If there's a law saying that you can't smoke crack with a prostitute, then being caught doing that is not a question of immorality; it's a question of illegality. If you were elected as an anti-drug candidate and you are caught doing drugs, the voters might rightly believe that you were not going to be an effective legislator against drugs, but the bigger issue would be whether or not doing drugs was illegal (chances are, yes).

The BBC had a very interesting article about European politics which made some points on the subject, to be found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6450823.stm. The central points, for those of you who are too lazy to look at the article (I know I frequently am, which is why I try not to post too many links), or if the article has been altered or removed (see previous discussions about this), are:

...[A staffer of an embattled politician] could not see why politicians - technical experts at designing the best possible laws - should have to behave in a certain moral fashion before any such law is introduced.

[He] claims this is a line through Europe, much more wobbly and patchy but just as real as the olive oil / butter line. It is the political line between Catholic and Protestant Europe. He thinks it is very Protestant to expect politicians to be secular saints who lead by example.

According to this theory, most Catholic nations accept flawed human nature for what it is and know that preachers may stumble in practice without affecting the truth of their doctrine, or indeed the wisdom of their laws.

But regardless of your religious feeling, you should realize (the operative word being should, as you probably won't) that the laws one supports are significantly more important that one's private life, as far as deciding fitness to govern. I personally don't believe that governments should legislate morality anyway, so all I'm looking for in representation is a person or people who will support laws that I support. What they do in their private time isn't terribly important. But I do support the tabloids' right to blow any impropriety out of proportion, because why have a government if it's not funny sometimes?