Should people in political positions be held to higher moral and ethical standards?

Question

And if we expect this higher level of accountablility does this make them better 'people' than the rest of us?

Answer 1

I think they should be held accountable to the moral standards that they themselves proclaimed.

So much of what they do is out of sight that we have to trust them. If we find that they are willing to move their moral standards in response to some temptation in one area, we can assume they'll change the standard in other areas.

It doesn't make them better people. The oversight process recognizes that these leaders are in a position to cause great damage.

Answer 2

Well, Bill Clinton did a fine job, in my opinion, as President even though he had several moral and ethical issues involving his personal conduct and his reluctance to admit his indiscretions in a public forum.

But, Mr. Clinton innately and intellectually knew right from wrong, in a moral perspective. He just chose to disregard some of those precepts when it came to his personal conduct. However, to me, he was honest and moral when he was responsible for acting on issues which involved the public at large.

Other politicians lack a moral compass in all areas of endeavor and are thus able to function comfortably outside of any moral boundaries without any regret or reluctance.

So, we need to use different yardsticks for measuring accountability for immoral actions which adversely affect the politician's constituents.

My take is that if his morals hurt the people, he should be admonished. If he only hurts himself, then he can be forgiven for his indiscretions.