I never understood this. Does politicians automatically assume that all onlookers are naive stupid sheep ?
Here's my 2 satoshis worth:
In any sort of representative government the people must keep a close eye on their appointed leaders.
Plato,
The Republic: "...he who refuses to rule is liable to be ruled by one who is worse than himself. And the fear of this, as I conceive, induces the good to take office, not because they would, but because they cannot help–not under the idea that they are going to have any benefit or enjoyment themselves, but as a necessity..."
Personally, I would think politicians admitting to faults, would be much better. We're all humans. Politicians or nobody else for that matter, is no different than you or me. We all make mistakes. This is human nature. Sometimes we do fuck up, and sometimes the fuckups are bigger and more serious than other times.
Anything else is stupid. Nobody is perfect. Nobody.
I know, I know. The problem is– ideas like "fault" or "mistake" or "human nature" isn't politically correct.
Pick a side: "nobody is perfect" is along the lines of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Patrick Henry, and Samuel Adams.
John Adams said, "We have
no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I guess I should avoid trying to quote the other side as I'm obviously biased; it basically boils down to, "do whatever you want and run to the Federal Government if you're in serious trouble."
What implications would it have for her career if she admitted that she overdid it in the Swartz case, and that she will change it in the future ? Would she at this point be done. Would she have to retire from her position ?
Actually yes–I believe if Ortiz were to admit prosecutorial overreach the case has enough public outcry as to set a precedent which would curtail the activities of the US Department of Justice. Curtailing the abuse of power, even though it's obviously right, is an admission that morality and religion still have a voice in the Federal Government. Ortiz has chosen a side.
I have absolutely zero respect for any authority that is a liar. In important matters, when I see someone lying, even if they have all the power in the world, that doesn't change a thing for me. A liar is a liar.
Either the Federal Government is always right or there is some higher authority. You and me individually do not get to choose. Therefore, a lie is either wrong, always wrong–or the Federal Government is right, always right.
Either there is a moral code that must be followed–all major religions include a moral code–or the Federal Government sets the moral code.
There's nobody else big enough to even compete.
If someone doesn't see this, they deserve not to hold any politican position whatsoever. They need to step down.
Absolutely!
There is still a large group of people who follow a standard moral code. Human nature being what it is, the Federal Government cannot be trusted. We should set some limits on the Federal Government–checks and balances–to rein in human nature, stemming from that moral code which delineates where human nature is ok and where it fails.
Pressing for political change on the basis of a shared moral code has worked in the past, so it's not a stretch to think Americans might still rally to it.
