Should our politicians be held to a higher moral standard?

Posted by admin on March 23, 2009 in Uncategorized

By Ignacio Gutiérrez
March 21, 2009

Societies function much more effectively, efficiently, and responsibly when politicians and elected officials are expected to follow the “rule of law” more so than the rather subjective definition of a “higher moral standard”.

Morality is a conveniently malleable term to begin with, one which could be stretched and sculpted according to most anyone’s ulterior motives. This in turn renders moral standards almost completely irrelevant and they should be regarded with skepticism, especially when it comes to those in power. Because what is moral behavior to one person, is an indignation to another.

After all, how can so many people glamorize Che Guevara and his noble and “moral” legacy of fighting for social justice, but turn a blind eye to his ordering the execution by firing squad of hundreds of people, including innocent student protestors, without the due process of law in a single month at La Cabaña prison 50 years ago? And what else other than moral relativity could explain why so many of his T-shirt wearing acolytes claim to be “morally outraged” by former President George W. Bush’s similar crime of the suspension of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay prisoners, of which none were executed?

Just like the reinterpretation and rehashing of religious beliefs, horrid atrocities have been committed by governments, especially military regimes, under the guise of “morality”. It serves as a perfectly rational excuse for megalomaniacal leaders to achieve absolutist power for as long as they can usurp it. Over six million Jews were systematically tortured and executed under the orders of Adolf Hitler for his shamelessly morbid goal of achieving a perfected race, of which he himself did not quality for. Yet many tend to forget that Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin are directly responsible for the deaths of just as many Chinese, and three times as many Russians, their very own people, under the moral ruse of communism and their battle against the purported immorality of individualism.

Which is why the rhetoric and pseudo-philosophizing of morality is still popular in communist nations such as Cuba whose totalitarian regime continues to push the false and deluded hope that communism will one day triumph again for those with the “moral courage” to endure needless sacrifice. This “morality above reality” mindset and rationale is explicitly illustrated in archived film footage where Fidel Castro was asked if he wore a bulletproof vest considering the various attempts on his life. He joked by opening his shirt, proudly displaying his bare chest and belly, bellowing a laugh and responded “No, I wear a moral vest”.

Sure he did. As possibly did other murderous tyrants such as Ho Chi Min, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin to name a few. If their “higher moral standards” are what people expect to be ruled and led by, we may as well rebuild our collapsing economy by constructing our own concentration camps replete with gas chambers and ovens, and printing our monthly food supply ration booklets, like the ones Cubans carry with them to this day. One would figure they would simply register these via internet nowadays, only they are still not allowed by law to have internet access in their homes.

And this is where societies walk a fine line as well when creating their laws. After all, how can it be possible that such a law as the banning of internet home use exist in some countries and not in others? Wouldn’t the “rule of law” be as open to interpretation?

Not when the laws are based on the practicalities of cause and effect and allow every individual the greatest scope of freedom if and as long as that individual is not restricting the rights or freedoms of others, as opposed to moral standards. This level of freedom carries with it a directly proportional level of responsibility, especially when it concerns our very survival. Which is why basic laws against murder, torture, theft, vandalism, sabotage, fraud, extortion, perjury, libel, etc. are as old as some of the Ten Commandments such as “Thou shall not murder, steal or bear false witness against your neighbor”.

But even the Ten Commandments bear their share of moral imposition such as not having any gods before God himself, keeping the Sabbath holy, and never using the Lord’s name in vain, which happen to take priority over the forbiddance of murder, theft or lying. What is an atheist who is convinced there is no god to do? Fortunately there is the separation of Church and State, another historical tell tale sign of the reason why “higher moral standards” are hardly a definitive qualification for our elected officials.

It is precisely because of the infinite number of quandaries that a “higher moral standard” poses, that makes such a prerequisite obsolete for elected officials in comparison to their obeying the rule of law. And chances are, if they respect and obey the rule of law to begin with, they’re bound to have higher moral standards that are genuine and socially reciprocal. Most of us who obey laws, don’t just do so because we’re afraid of being caught if we don’t. We do so because they make sense to our survival.

Considering how poor a job morality alone has done to ensure our survival, let alone our rights, we need to look further beyond mere moral standards as criteria in electing our leaders. No matter how high a moral standard politicians profess to set for themselves, and much less the rest of us whom they ultimately work for.