What Am I Electing?

Last week there was mud flying between Democratic candidates for President Obama and Clinton. This week the mud is flying between former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani and his son. As odd as it seems yes, father and son are apparently throwing mud at one another now in an effort to bring to light the true person behind Rudy Guiliani. This whole episode has once again given rise in the media to attempts at bringing a candidate's private life into the open. I agree with the statement that by serving the public, your entire life is open to the public, but there are some things which can safely remain private and others that can make or break a candidate. I mean after all, what are we electing? The man or the reputation? I prefer to think that those of us who exercise our right to vote are voting on a candidate based upon their stances and the plan for leadership which they are sharing with us. Though I know there are times that that's not really the case. Need an example? How about the record number of voters who turned out to elect Arnold Schwarzenegger. True he may have done okay as a Governor (or the Governator as he is sometimes called) but do you honestly want to tell me that it was his plan for urban renewal or immigration that got him elected? Perhaps it was the fact that he was the Terminator in the movies that sealed the deal.

Arnold and Rudy both may be charismatic and intelligent leaders but I am of the opinion that we need to examine their political history as opposed to their private standings to decide if they are electable or not. Guiliani has been accused of being a mean and neglectful father; he has been married several times and his previous marriages all ended in divorce. The media is choosing to make a big deal about all this but is it truly worth getting in a dander over? As I have stated before, I have yet to see a candidate who does not have a single blemish on his record. Like it or not, politics is a dirty game and it's a truly shakey leader who will come out on top clean as a whistle. You truly have to call into question why this person has no blemishes at all. Does that mean we should support the candidate who is an alcoholic and abusive towards his family? Absolutely not, but it is not the end all be all criteria in electing him.

This dilemma is a very finely honed sword. You can walk the edge very carefully but a little bit on one side or the other and you end up getting cut. Now before people think that I don't care what Guiliani's son has to say about his father, let me clarify that I do think it's an important means of gaining some insight into the person behind the leader. It would make me feel better if perhaps his family was all standing behind him rather than attempting to bring into question his character. Guiliani definitely led New York City during a very troubling and difficult time and he did do wonders to improve the city in general. No one can take that away from him. But the fact that members of his family are now calling into question his fidelity at home can lead to one of two possible (but by no means the only) conclusions.

The first conclusion is that perhaps his family suffered neglect and less face time with him because of the time and efforts he dedicated to the city. That's definitely one way to put a positive spin on it. The second conclusion is that he didn't care about his family all that much and wasn't interested in keeping things together on the homefront. Whatever the reasoning, it is possible that people will draw conclusions to either side of the question. I think that there is some measure of importance but there is no need to go digging into the far past and bring in neighbors he lived next to; friends he ticked off; or waiters who said he tips badly at restaurants. All these things make up a person but they are not all that we should be basing our decisions on. It's up to us, the electorate, to filter out the nonsence that is being thrown about out there and decide what is truly important and what isn't.

So therefore again the question comes up; do we care what a candidate is like outside of the public eye and in private? In having thought about it, it can be very difficult to decide since it does and doesn't have bearing on the issues at hand. Guiliani could very well become the next candidate for President on the Republican ticket. He could be the one face we see next year all over our televisions. The fundamental question will be this then. Do we elect him based on his record in office or his record at home? You decide.