Trump Tapes and the Private Lives of Public Figures

With the Trump Tapes leak, once again the pseudo puritanical streak that pervades across America has made another prominent appearance. As expected there was universal condemnation from every corner. Every pundit on every news show was gleefully outraged and even tears were shed. Member from his own party were quick to withdraw their support and even suggest that Trump drop out. The great paragon of moral conduct Arnold Schwarzenegger could not take it any longer, he announced that he will not be voting for Trump. Even Lena Dunham was outraged. Another paragon of women’s rights Hillary Clinton also expressed her utter disgust. 

Most of these people are anti Trump folks and political rivals who were looking to jump ship and this provided them with a convenient excuse. But there may be folks who are genuinely offended and maybe in two minds in voting for Trump. So how does one process this?

A politician is very simply an employee of the people. We cannot all be Senators, Mayors, Governors and Presidents, hence we the people lend this power to an individual by means of voting him or her for a political position. As an employer our job should be no different than any regular employer conducting an interview. You judge the candidate for their subject matter expertise and all you evaluate their behavior during the personal interview. You also subject the candidate to a medical test to know if the candidate is in good health enough to perform his or her duties. Does an employer have the right to dig up objectionable or distasteful statements made in private from decades ago? Do know of employers who send a private detective after them to trail them to find out if the individual is unfaithful to his wife? Do you know of employers who broach personal questions? What the individual does beyond his work time is none of the employer’s business. You pay the employee for his work. Why should the rules of finding personal information about the individual differ for a politician?

For career politicians life is always different, they do everything in their life expecting to be questioned about it later. Hence every syllable they utter and every

A politician just like an employee should be judged by the professional record only. We are not entitled to find out information about the past and the personal.  We often hear the argument. “If he cheated in his personal life, how can we trust him as a leader”. The word ‘personal’ means “matters concerning one's private life, relationships, and emotions.” The individual is under no obligation to reveal what he does beyond office hours and if he does either dodge or sandbag the question.

For every job these days it is mandatory to have a medical checkup and this rule should apply to the politician as well.  It is essential that the individual who we are entrusting with such an important job is sound both mentally and physically. But that is as far as we are entitled to go.

Regarding Trump’s statement, clearly they were distasteful but they were no different from regular locker room talk among gentlemen and perhaps even some ladies.

It was clear that Trump was joking, that can be judged by the reaction from Billy Bush. But above all was from ten years ago. If Trump was caught making a similar statement about a female supporter at a rally the matter would have been current and therefore relevant.

Also if Trump’s words were offensive what about the act committed by Bill and Hillary reaction to denounce and demonize the victims. Will Hillary like every employee subject herself to a medical test and release the results in public?

All through this, somewhere in the country there is somebody is watching these occurrences, maybe this individual aspires to join politics since he or she had good ideas and wants to make a difference. This individual may have committed some indiscretion in the past and is daunted by the prospect of being hounded by the media and the opposition and the potential public humiliation for the individual and family members that follows, hence the idea of running for elections is prematurely terminated. Maybe our country just loses a potential great leader who may do wonders for us. Ask average individual about joining politics, the reply will be “I am not cut out for politics; I don’t have the money for it”.  A large group of capable people have already excluded from the process because of the scrutiny and the rest just don’t they are the sort who can survive. That leaves us with very little to choose from.

Under ideal circumstances we would want a leader of boundless talent and spotless moral character. But in real world that is probably impossible. Perhaps a total commitment to politics, that include frequent travelling, meetings at odd hours and spending very little time with the near and dear ones, will inevitably affect the personal life. Do we hold this against the leader? 

The question to the voting public should ask themselves is what sort of leader would they want? If we are lucky, we may just find the right sort of individual who is capable of leading this country to a new path of growth and prosperity, but do we focus on the indiscretions and personal problems and deem this as grounds for dismissal and settle for person of mediocrity just because he is of ‘solid moral character’?