ArticlePDF Available

Judging the Private Lives of Public Officials

Authors:

Abstract

This article discusses the moral importance of privacy and its place in the lives of public officials. It examines the tension between the legitimate claims of citizens and overseers to scrutinize the private lives of public figures and the rights of officials to privacy. It argues that these legitimate reasons break down in practice almost all barriers to scrutiny due to the weaknesses of the limits and the incentives of American politics and the modern media. The article explores the consequences of a world where public officials possess no private lives. These unsavory consequences exemplify the dangers of denying any boundaries between private and public. The article concludes that citizens need to redefine the boundaries of private and public life and suggests standards by which citizens can judge the private lives of public officials.
... As a result, we reason that the public will judge hypocritical politicians more harshly because they judge hypocrisy to be relevant to a politician's job rather than merely a personal or moral failing. Support for this distinction between private judgments and professional ones comes from Dobel (1998) in his examination of politicians' rights to privacy. He argues that when private actions take on a hypocritical cast, they become matters of professional competence rather than merely personal failings. ...
... We also know that when politicians make a professional misstep by abusing their office in the process of scandal, they become professionally suspect (Doherty, Dowling, & Miller, 2011). If Dobel (1998) is correct about hypocrisy as a professional misdeed, then politicians caught up in hypocritical scandals should be judged more negatively on their professional performance. ...
Article
Full-text available
Aggregate, survey, and experimental research into political scandal teaches us how the public reacts to revelations of misdeeds on behalf of its elected representatives. One common scenario, however, has been largely overlooked in scandal studies: the effects of hypocrisy in scandal. Examples abound of politicians who campaign on values that they then directly betray with their actions in office. Conventional wisdom, however, holds that such hypocrisy is an unpardonable transgression. We examine whether and how hypocrisy affects public reactions to political scandal and its perpetrators. Using a Quinnipiac University survey experiment, we demonstrate that negative judgments of a hypothetical politician caught in an adulterous relationship not only vary by degree depending on the presence or absence of hypocrisy but that they also vary by type of judgment. Individuals generally react more negatively to politicians in hypocritical scandal situations than nonhypocritical ones. In addition, a hypocritical situation affects public judgments of a politician's competence in office, above and beyond other judgments, demonstrating an added professional aspect to judgments of scandals when they involve hypocrisy.
... As a result, we reason that the public will judge hypocritical politicians more harshly because they judge hypocrisy to be relevant to a politician's job rather than merely a personal or moral failing. Support for this distinction between private judgments and professional ones comes from Dobel (1998) in his examination of politicians' rights to privacy. He argues that when private actions take on a hypocritical cast, they become matters of professional competence rather than merely personal failings. ...
... We also know that when politicians make a professional misstep by abusing their office in the process of scandal, they become professionally suspect (Doherty, Dowling, & Miller, 2011). If Dobel (1998) is correct about hypocrisy as a professional misdeed, then politicians caught up in hypocritical scandals should be judged more negatively on their professional performance. ...
Article
Full-text available
Aggregate, survey, and experimental research into political scandal teaches us how the public reacts to revelations of misdeeds on behalf of its elected representatives. One common scenario, however, has been largely overlooked in scandal studies: the effects of hypocrisy in scandal. Examples abound of politicians who campaign on values that they then directly betray with their actions in office. Conventional wisdom, however, holds that such hypocrisy is an unpardonable transgression. We examine whether and how hypocrisy affects public reactions to political scandal and its perpetrators. Using a Quinnipiac University survey experiment, we demonstrate that negative judgments of a hypothetical politician caught in an adulterous relationship not only vary by degree depending on the presence or absence of hypocrisy but that they also vary by type of judgment. Individuals generally react more negatively to politicians in hypocritical scandal situations than nonhypocritical ones. In addition, a hypocritical situation affects public judgments of a politician’s competence in office, above and beyond other judgments, demonstrating an added professional aspect to judgments of scandals when they involve hypocrisy.
... Paradoxically, this can 'leave politicians facing a situation where, even when their actions are, all things considered justified they will become morally polluted for having so acted' (Nick and de Wijze 2023, 416). Numerous studies have explored dilemmas from a similar Walzerian view, covering broad topics such as what happens if a politician decides not to dirty their hands by choosing the deontological options (Cunningham 1992;Hollis 1982); the extent to which politicians should feel remorse about their decisions in these dilemmas (de Wijze 2005;Roadevin 2019); how dirty hands dilemmas can be understood from a Marxist perspective (Lukes 1986); and to what extent, if at all, politics constitutes a normatively different moral sphere from the individual sphere (Dobel 1998;Hampshire 1978;Tholen 2020;Tillyris 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
What are the most challenging ethical dilemmas for politicians, and how do they handle them? The classical literature on ethical dilemmas in politics has mainly explored them as conflicts between ethical principles in high-stakes decisions. However, empirical evidence of the extent to which such dilemmas accurately reflect the experience of most politicians is scarce. Drawing on extensive in-depth interviews with Swedish parliamentarians, I show that their dilemmas stem mainly from powerlessness. Powerlessness in politics manifests itself in primarily two ways: relational powerlessness, which is driven by constraints like party and constituency loyalties, and inherent powerlessness due to formal and informal barriers like constitutional mandates and limited time and resources. This study contributes to the field of political ethics by anchoring political dilemmas in everyday democratic politics and by introducing powerlessness as a new central concept. In doing so, it supplements our understanding of ethical dilemmas in politics with insights from those confronting them.
... There has also been a 'tabloidisation' of existing media, as broadsheet newspapers have gone downmarket in an attempt to arrest declining revenues (with a particular interest in sex scandals), which has contributed to increasing personalisation of politics (Dobel 1998;Tumber 2004;Tumber andWaisbord 2004a, 2004b). Tumber and Waisbord describe 'tabloidisation' as the focus on titillation, drama, rumour and sensationalism, at the expense of substance and the higher journalistic standards of rigour and veracity. ...
... There has also been a 'tabloidisation' of existing media, as broadsheet newspapers have gone downmarket in an attempt to arrest declining revenues (with a particular interest in sex scandals), which has contributed to increasing personalisation of politics (Dobel 1998;Tumber 2004;Tumber andWaisbord 2004a, 2004b). Tumber and Waisbord describe 'tabloidisation' as the focus on titillation, drama, rumour and sensationalism, at the expense of substance and the higher journalistic standards of rigour and veracity. ...
Article
Full-text available
Friendship is one of the most important aspects of private life. It provides the social and relational support for integrity, growth, and intimacy. At the same time friendship can be vital to the life of a public leader. Friends anchor integrity and offer trust, honesty, and loyalty based on past experience. Using the classical ideal of friendship developed by Aristotle and Cicero, this article argues that friendship consists of a mutual and exclusive relationship built on a unique affiliation between two people that can transcend the bounds of office and obligation. The central thesis is that the obligations of leadership place demands on leaders for detachment, judgment, and political calculation that are in tension with the obligations of friendship. The article explores two major strains that arise between friends and leaders—the temptation to use friends and the temptation to give friends special treatment. The article concludes with a preliminary suggestion that friendship with leaders at work is very difficult, but it can be sustained with a strong basis prior to working together, a clear understanding of roles, and the ability to keep honesty and affection alive in the relationship.
Article
Full-text available
Watergate. Monica Lewinsky. Painkillers in the Oval Office. Iran-Contra. Read My Lips. The Character Factor. The American president's character matters. To most Americans, it matters deeply. But how do we define what character means, and why can't we agree? In this sober, probing consideration of "the character factor" and the presidency, veteran political analyst James P. Pfiffner leads us through a survey of three aspects of presidential character that have proved problematic for recent chief executives: lies, promise-keeping, and sexual probity. His goal is not to tell us which presidents have been "good" and which "bad." Rather, he helps us think critically and impartially about complex character issues and invites us to reach our own conclusions. The Character Factor avoids both the abyss of moral relativism and the desert of political cynicism. It helps us look at our presidents (and our presidential candidates) without illusions, knowing that flawed men can still be great leaders but that some flaws deserve defeat at the polls-or even the ultimate presidential sanction, impeachment.
Chapter
Are the private aff airs of public offi cials a matter of public concern? Imagine that a cabinet member in his off duty capacity makes a discriminatory remark about a minority group. Perhaps he makes a racist joke when at the dinner table with his family. Is the citizenry entitled to know? We do not have to resort to imagined cases. In 1976 the press revealed that President Carter's nominee to the position of Attorney General, Bell Griffin, was a member of private clubs that had a policy of segregated membership excluding blacks, Jews and other minorities. Following that revelation, his nomination became an object of controversy (Thompson 1987: 130). Was the press entitled to reveal Griffi n's private club memberships? Was the public entitled to know?.
Article
The origins of presidential claims to extraconstitutional powers during national crises are contentious points of debate among constitutional and legal scholars. The Constitution is silent on the matter, yet from Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War to George W. Bush's creation of the enemy combatants label, a number of presidents have invoked emergency executive power in defense of actions not specifically endorsed in the Constitution or granted by Congress. Taking up the debate, Clement Fatovic digs into the intellectual history of the nation's founding to argue that the originators of liberal constitutional theory explicitly endorsed the use of extraordinary, extralegal measures to deal with genuine national emergencies. He traces the evolution of thought on the matter through the writings of John Locke, David Hume, William Blackstone, and the founding fathers, finding in them stated support for what Locke termed prerogative, tempered by a carefully construed concept of public-oriented virtues. Fatovic maintains that the founders believed that moral character and republican decency would restrain the president from abusing this grant of enhanced authority and ensure that it remained temporary. This engaging, carefully considered survey of the conceptions of executive power in constitutional thought explains how liberalism's founders attempted to reconcile the principles of constitutional government with the fact that some circumstances would demand that an executive take normally proscribed actions. Scholars of liberalism, the American founding, and the American presidency will find Fatovic's reasoned arguments against the conventional wisdom enlightening. © 2009 The Johns Hopkins University Press. All rights reserved.
Article
Political scandals are an indicator of freedom of speech, an open and aggressive media and strong political competition. Émile Durkheim’s ideas on social cohesion have a particular resonance in liberal democracies, and raise the question of whether scandals can only occur in liberal democracies. Scandals enable an interrogation of the collective moral code and public opinion is used to punish the “deviant” behaviour of politicians, who are elevated to a symbolic position of moral authority. This form of non-violent social conflict between competing political groups performs a positive role in maintaining a healthy and vigilant democracy, albeit with the presence of some negative side-effects, such as incursions into the private sphere.
Chapter
How far can we apply the same moral principles to both public and private behaviour. In the interests of effective political action, are we right to accept acts of deceit, exploitation or force which we would regard as unacceptable in private relations with individuals? What means can be properly adopted in the promotion of great public causes? The problem of 'dirty hands' in politics was posed most strikingly by Machiavelli. It has re-emerged this century in a pressing and, to some extent, a new form, in connection with the two World Wars and more recently the Vietnam War, where the political decisions and the destruction, and risks of destruction, have been of a scale and character not previously experienced. The contributors, including Bernard Williams, Thomas Nagel, T. M. Scanlon, and Ronald Dworkin, examine the background to this problem in moral and political theory.
Chapter
How far can we apply the same moral principles to both public and private behaviour. In the interests of effective political action, are we right to accept acts of deceit, exploitation or force which we would regard as unacceptable in private relations with individuals? What means can be properly adopted in the promotion of great public causes? The problem of 'dirty hands' in politics was posed most strikingly by Machiavelli. It has re-emerged this century in a pressing and, to some extent, a new form, in connection with the two World Wars and more recently the Vietnam War, where the political decisions and the destruction, and risks of destruction, have been of a scale and character not previously experienced. The contributors, including Bernard Williams, Thomas Nagel, T. M. Scanlon, and Ronald Dworkin, examine the background to this problem in moral and political theory.
Chapter
How far can we apply the same moral principles to both public and private behaviour. In the interests of effective political action, are we right to accept acts of deceit, exploitation or force which we would regard as unacceptable in private relations with individuals? What means can be properly adopted in the promotion of great public causes? The problem of 'dirty hands' in politics was posed most strikingly by Machiavelli. It has re-emerged this century in a pressing and, to some extent, a new form, in connection with the two World Wars and more recently the Vietnam War, where the political decisions and the destruction, and risks of destruction, have been of a scale and character not previously experienced. The contributors, including Bernard Williams, Thomas Nagel, T. M. Scanlon, and Ronald Dworkin, examine the background to this problem in moral and political theory.
Chapter
How far can we apply the same moral principles to both public and private behaviour. In the interests of effective political action, are we right to accept acts of deceit, exploitation or force which we would regard as unacceptable in private relations with individuals? What means can be properly adopted in the promotion of great public causes? The problem of 'dirty hands' in politics was posed most strikingly by Machiavelli. It has re-emerged this century in a pressing and, to some extent, a new form, in connection with the two World Wars and more recently the Vietnam War, where the political decisions and the destruction, and risks of destruction, have been of a scale and character not previously experienced. The contributors, including Bernard Williams, Thomas Nagel, T. M. Scanlon, and Ronald Dworkin, examine the background to this problem in moral and political theory.