6 ms·

Do you risk your career and your livelihood for your innate principles often?

by dman 13y ago

mildtrepidation 13y ago
While I agree with this, it's exactly the reason many governments right now get almost nothing done (and what they do get done is awful): People in power who care more about their job security than their -- or anyone else's -- principles. A politician's career should be based on reconciling principle with reality. Their livelihood should be linked directly to their ability to do this successfully. That comes with a certain level of idealism, true, but without that we have to concede that our lives are in the hands of people we don't even expect to care.
- rayiner 13y ago
  It's more complicated than that. Politicians have a limited amount of political capital, and in American politics even getting little things done requires spending a lot of it. Obama put up some huge numbers and ultimately spent all his political capital just doing two things: 1) getting us out of Iraq; and 2) passing the Affordable Care Act. Ending the drug war is important to some people, but there are tons of people who support the drug war for moral reasons, on both sides of the aisle. Meanwhile, with an aging populace people are much more concerned with Medicare, Social Security, healthcare, pensions, etc, than the justice or injustice of the drug war. Even a politician who does care sincerely about ending the drug war wouldn't waste his political capital actually doing it, not in face of all the more important things that people want done.
  - proksoup 13y ago
    Support the drug war ... for moral reasons? That mother showing pictures of her 4 missing boys in the article this thread is about, I think she would argue the war is immoral. I think the people who think the drug war is moral, would change their mind if they spent more than 30 seconds thinking about it. Baffles my mind, and when pressed in person, even pious blowhards admit there are serious violent death problems with their methods --- but the people who support them seem totally oblivious to the violent oppressive death that their war causes. How the fuck is it a moral war?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Not everyone has the same system of morals. A lot of people, probably most, think that bad behavior is socially contagious. It's a premise that is not exactly divorced from reality. E.g. I would certainly be at least concerned if my daughter's friends were drug users, because I do think children and adolescents can pick up bad habits from the people around them. To these people, the possibility of drugs raises the threat of personal danger to their families. Some people further think that bad habits like drug use can be controlled through legal means. I don't think they believe it can be eliminated, but I think they believe that if we did not have a drug war, drug use would be a lot more common. Furthermore, those people can justify the damage caused by enforcement on the grounds that it happens to people who bring it upon themselves, by participating in drug use and drug trade. Even this proposition isn't totally divorced from reality, at least within the U.S. There is lots of collateral damage, but by and large the people dying in gang wars are involved in gangs to begin with, and the people in jail for drug crimes did use or deal drugs. You don't have to agree with any of this to concede that these ideas are rooted in some sort of moral framework. Not a particularly compassionate moral framework, but there is nothing about moral frameworks that requires them to be compassionate.
      - proksoup 13y ago
        "Not a particularly compassionate moral framework, but there is nothing about moral frameworks that requires them to be compassionate." My concern is, they think, and argue that their framework is compassionate --- but they are ignorant of reality and what's actually going on with their war.
    - harryh 13y ago
      If your daughter was routinely going over to a friend's house where the friend's parent was visibly high on a regular basis how would you feel about it?
      - anonymoushn 13y ago
        As a result of medical treatment or recreationally? Assuming the latter and a popular choice of recreational drug, I don't much harm will come from a kid seeing a friend's parent saying stupid things and eating snack foods. If the friend's parent was visibly drunk, that would be something to worry about.
- dreamdu5t 13y ago
  I would suggest you do concede to reality: We give control to other people at the behest of rhetoric about "getting things done" or "everything would crumble without me." We shouldn't put people "in power" in the first place.
legutierr 13y ago
Is comming out against the "war on drugs" really a career killer, still? I think some real leadership from public officials would quickly reverse the remnant of public support that exists for this so-called war.
- rayiner 13y ago
  You've vastly misjudged the battlefield. Among actual voters, the drug war is still seen favorably.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Among actual voters, the drug war is still seen favorably. Some elements of it obviously aren't, as we see marijuana legalization advancing (in some places, at least nominally, restricted to "medical" use, in other places more generally.)
  - elements 13y ago
    Slightly OT, but spending a bit of time on Gallup's website recently has shown me much I've misjudged the popularity of a lot of attitudes.
  - legutierr 13y ago
    I'd love to know where I could find the stats on actual support that drug war policies have. Although I'm sure that majorities exist opposing outright legalization, I think that the people who support "drug war" policies as they are currently implemented are in the minority. The way the question is posed to people can have a big effect on support. For instance, saying, "The war on drugs is counter-productive because it increases addiction rates and increases the harm caused by addiction, and should be replaced with a well-funded addiction-minimization and education regime," is different than saying, "Drugs should be legalized because adults should be able to choose for themselves what they put in their bodies." When I mentioned "real leadership" above, I meant leaders that would make a case and design an alternate policy that would convince voters who are afraid of legalization as such, but who recognize that the drug war is a failed policy.
guerrilla 13y ago
Yes, but I also don't have to depend on popularity.
netcan 13y ago
I don't think that's fair .. at least not in most cases. Politician is not just a job. It's a leadership role, moral leadership among other things. Being principled is a major component of the job they've undertaken. If a doctor found a discrepancy between his career and the welfare of his patients or a judge between his career and justice, I really do think they are morally obligated to choose selflessly. Maybe it's naive, but I think it's possible to have a society where most judges are genuinely obsessed with being just.
- declan 13y ago
  I'd say the last place to search for "moral leadership" is among the ranks of professional politicians.
- bmelton 13y ago
  The problem therein is that, at least in the vast majority of circumstances, everybody thinks that they are being "just", but their justice is always colored by their own personal morals, which may or may not conform to your morals or mine. I'm sure that the judge who recently disallowed a mother from naming her child "Messiah" felt like he was being just, but that justice was undoubtedly colored by his religious faith. The judges who uphold "traditional marriage" also probably felt like they were being just, as their justice is shaped by what they personally consider to be 'right' and 'wrong'. The law itself, in too many cases, offers too much ambiguity. We want states to have the right to do things their own way on issues we want, but not on issues we don't. If we, as people, support the right of gay marriage, we think that states should be required to allow it. However, if we support marijuana is relatively harmless, we think that states should be allowed to legalize it. These are just examples, but it's hard to come up with a 'pragmatic' solution for what is or isn't just. If justice is based on morality, then whose morality do we base it on? If it's based on whether or not it causes harm to others, then what level of harm do we allow? Freedom of speech is generally harmless, except when it isn't -- except when it's "fire" in a theater, or when it's your neighbors yelling at 3 am, or when it's someone preaching [religion/anti-religion] in contrast to what I want to hear. In short, it's a very complicated thing, justice, with blurry edges, multiple middles, and an infinite list of value substitutions that muddy the issue. Even those doing the very best things for the most noble of purposes can be considered harmful by others who are also doing the very best things for the most noble of purposes.
Nursie 13y ago
That's exactly what politicians ought to do and exactly why politics should not be a career. Granted, Kofi Annan was not a politician in the same way as the folks I'm really aiming this comment at, but still.

Do you risk your career and your livelihood for your innate principles often?

by dman 13y ago

Do you risk your career and your livelihood for your innate principles often?

While I agree with this, it's exactly the reason many governments right now get almost nothing done (and what they do get done is awful): People in power who care more about their job security than their -- or anyone else's -- principles. A politician's career should be based on reconciling principle with reality. Their livelihood should be linked directly to their ability to do this successfully. That comes with a certain level of idealism, true, but without that we have to concede that our lives are in the hands of people we don't even expect to care.

rayiner 13y ago
It's more complicated than that. Politicians have a limited amount of political capital, and in American politics even getting little things done requires spending a lot of it. Obama put up some huge numbers and ultimately spent all his political capital just doing two things: 1) getting us out of Iraq; and 2) passing the Affordable Care Act. Ending the drug war is important to some people, but there are tons of people who support the drug war for moral reasons, on both sides of the aisle. Meanwhile, with an aging populace people are much more concerned with Medicare, Social Security, healthcare, pensions, etc, than the justice or injustice of the drug war. Even a politician who does care sincerely about ending the drug war wouldn't waste his political capital actually doing it, not in face of all the more important things that people want done.
- proksoup 13y ago
  Support the drug war ... for moral reasons? That mother showing pictures of her 4 missing boys in the article this thread is about, I think she would argue the war is immoral. I think the people who think the drug war is moral, would change their mind if they spent more than 30 seconds thinking about it. Baffles my mind, and when pressed in person, even pious blowhards admit there are serious violent death problems with their methods --- but the people who support them seem totally oblivious to the violent oppressive death that their war causes. How the fuck is it a moral war?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Not everyone has the same system of morals. A lot of people, probably most, think that bad behavior is socially contagious. It's a premise that is not exactly divorced from reality. E.g. I would certainly be at least concerned if my daughter's friends were drug users, because I do think children and adolescents can pick up bad habits from the people around them. To these people, the possibility of drugs raises the threat of personal danger to their families. Some people further think that bad habits like drug use can be controlled through legal means. I don't think they believe it can be eliminated, but I think they believe that if we did not have a drug war, drug use would be a lot more common. Furthermore, those people can justify the damage caused by enforcement on the grounds that it happens to people who bring it upon themselves, by participating in drug use and drug trade. Even this proposition isn't totally divorced from reality, at least within the U.S. There is lots of collateral damage, but by and large the people dying in gang wars are involved in gangs to begin with, and the people in jail for drug crimes did use or deal drugs. You don't have to agree with any of this to concede that these ideas are rooted in some sort of moral framework. Not a particularly compassionate moral framework, but there is nothing about moral frameworks that requires them to be compassionate.
    - proksoup 13y ago
      "Not a particularly compassionate moral framework, but there is nothing about moral frameworks that requires them to be compassionate." My concern is, they think, and argue that their framework is compassionate --- but they are ignorant of reality and what's actually going on with their war.
  - harryh 13y ago
    If your daughter was routinely going over to a friend's house where the friend's parent was visibly high on a regular basis how would you feel about it?
    - anonymoushn 13y ago
      As a result of medical treatment or recreationally? Assuming the latter and a popular choice of recreational drug, I don't much harm will come from a kid seeing a friend's parent saying stupid things and eating snack foods. If the friend's parent was visibly drunk, that would be something to worry about.
dreamdu5t 13y ago
I would suggest you do concede to reality: We give control to other people at the behest of rhetoric about "getting things done" or "everything would crumble without me." We shouldn't put people "in power" in the first place.

legutierr 13y ago

Is comming out against the "war on drugs" really a career killer, still? I think some real leadership from public officials would quickly reverse the remnant of public support that exists for this so-called war.

rayiner 13y ago
You've vastly misjudged the battlefield. Among actual voters, the drug war is still seen favorably.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Among actual voters, the drug war is still seen favorably. Some elements of it obviously aren't, as we see marijuana legalization advancing (in some places, at least nominally, restricted to "medical" use, in other places more generally.)
- elements 13y ago
  Slightly OT, but spending a bit of time on Gallup's website recently has shown me much I've misjudged the popularity of a lot of attitudes.
- legutierr 13y ago
  I'd love to know where I could find the stats on actual support that drug war policies have. Although I'm sure that majorities exist opposing outright legalization, I think that the people who support "drug war" policies as they are currently implemented are in the minority. The way the question is posed to people can have a big effect on support. For instance, saying, "The war on drugs is counter-productive because it increases addiction rates and increases the harm caused by addiction, and should be replaced with a well-funded addiction-minimization and education regime," is different than saying, "Drugs should be legalized because adults should be able to choose for themselves what they put in their bodies." When I mentioned "real leadership" above, I meant leaders that would make a case and design an alternate policy that would convince voters who are afraid of legalization as such, but who recognize that the drug war is a failed policy.

guerrilla 13y ago

Yes, but I also don't have to depend on popularity.

netcan 13y ago

I don't think that's fair .. at least not in most cases. Politician is not just a job. It's a leadership role, moral leadership among other things. Being principled is a major component of the job they've undertaken. If a doctor found a discrepancy between his career and the welfare of his patients or a judge between his career and justice, I really do think they are morally obligated to choose selflessly. Maybe it's naive, but I think it's possible to have a society where most judges are genuinely obsessed with being just.

declan 13y ago
I'd say the last place to search for "moral leadership" is among the ranks of professional politicians.
bmelton 13y ago
The problem therein is that, at least in the vast majority of circumstances, everybody thinks that they are being "just", but their justice is always colored by their own personal morals, which may or may not conform to your morals or mine. I'm sure that the judge who recently disallowed a mother from naming her child "Messiah" felt like he was being just, but that justice was undoubtedly colored by his religious faith. The judges who uphold "traditional marriage" also probably felt like they were being just, as their justice is shaped by what they personally consider to be 'right' and 'wrong'. The law itself, in too many cases, offers too much ambiguity. We want states to have the right to do things their own way on issues we want, but not on issues we don't. If we, as people, support the right of gay marriage, we think that states should be required to allow it. However, if we support marijuana is relatively harmless, we think that states should be allowed to legalize it. These are just examples, but it's hard to come up with a 'pragmatic' solution for what is or isn't just. If justice is based on morality, then whose morality do we base it on? If it's based on whether or not it causes harm to others, then what level of harm do we allow? Freedom of speech is generally harmless, except when it isn't -- except when it's "fire" in a theater, or when it's your neighbors yelling at 3 am, or when it's someone preaching [religion/anti-religion] in contrast to what I want to hear. In short, it's a very complicated thing, justice, with blurry edges, multiple middles, and an infinite list of value substitutions that muddy the issue. Even those doing the very best things for the most noble of purposes can be considered harmful by others who are also doing the very best things for the most noble of purposes.

Nursie 13y ago

That's exactly what politicians ought to do and exactly why politics should not be a career. Granted, Kofi Annan was not a politician in the same way as the folks I'm really aiming this comment at, but still.