In both our class and popular news,
political ethics and the ways of current politicians has been a heated subject.
Seeing as how the presidential election is merely weeks away, it makes sense
for the citizens of the United States to be taking closer looks into what type
of qualities and characteristics are important in a leader.
While I was reading the assigned
text “Justice,” from Aristotle’s Nicomachean
Ethics, the passage beneath the heading “political justice,” struck me as
particularly interesting. From these words of Aristotle, it is easy to agree
that, “if a ruler is just, he seems to profit nothing by it”(p. 84). However,
it is obvious that throughout history and even into society today, leaders
almost always receive benefits not accessible to ordinary citizens. It is
questionable though whether or not these advantages are necessary when one
single person holds so much power and represents the masses.
Is there justice in having
excessive amounts of security when it is so easy to become the target of anger
and resentment? As members of a society that strongly values equality, it can
be argued that our head of state is not within reach. Of course, because of the
way our justice system is set up our voices are to be heard through elected
representatives. In my opinion, there should be a balance between having, for instance,
the secret service that offer protection 24/7, and never having the opportunity
to sit down and chat with the person people trust with their nation.
Another arguable injustice concerning
the leaders of today is the amount of wealth they accumulate. Millions of
dollars are spent every year on political campaigns in the United States. It is
right or just to have kids going without food and clothing when the people they
are supposes to look up to have all that plus more. It can be really difficult
to build a connection with someone that seems so different. On the other hand,
isn’t it the American Dream to aspire to do more with ones life? Everyone wants
his or her leader to represent them in a positive light and unfortunately poor
economic situations, while they are understandable in some cases, limit the
amount of respect others have for you. This in its self is an injustice.
Unfortunately the world is not
ideal. It would be nice to have a completely good and justice world with
perfect leaders as described by Plato and Aristotle but realistically it is not
plausible. Personally, Aristotle summed up the faultless candidate for the next
president of the United States in a short statement—“a ruler is a guardian of
what is just and hence of what is equal [and so must not award himself too many
goods]”(p. 84).
I do agree that our political system is in no way perfect. I also agree that it does seem difficult to give someone so much power with very little connection with them, but then again the reason presidents are not very accessible is because in many cases it was more trouble than it was worth. However, if there was a balance between tight security and the ability to sit down and talk to the president, who would talk to him? It would most likely be people who have more money and more resources and this would be an injustice to the people who are not as fortunate. The most underrepresented groups today are those with the least amount of money or resources, and this is a problem for them with Congress, but being excluded from a direct conversation with the president would be worse. It may be possible (but very difficult) to come up with a just way to distribute who the president talks to making sure that one group isn’t over represented or under represented.
ReplyDeleteI think that the amount of money that most people accumulate and the amount of money spent on elections is a serious problem. I also think many Americans are unaware of the poverty that exists in America; many kids only eat what food is provided to them by their schools. I think that one part of that is that people are so focused on promoting this image of the American dream that they often don’t acknowledge that there is a lot of poverty in this country. I also think that part of this has to do with the fact that poorer people are not represented very well so they are often forgotten and don’t have a good reputation. Most people believe that if you are poor it’s your fault and you did something wrong, this is mostly not the case and therefore unjust to judge someone based on their economic status.
Did someone mention the wealth spent on political campaigns?
ReplyDeletehttp://unitedrepublic.org/fast-facts/
If we're worried that the president would only speak to high-profile lobbyists, the system of presidential conferences could be set up on a blind lot-drawing system or something akin to it. People who want to see the president would enter their names, and then, after a thorough background check by the FBI/CIA/Secret Service, the candidate chosen would have something like a half-hour to talk with the president.
Good luck getting something like that implemented, though; the president is usually pretty busy. A more feasible alternative would be to establish this system with our congressional representatives, I think.
I think that the president, if they do a good job, could be rewarded in many ways rather then merely material things. Of coarse there are going to be people that disagree with you regardless of the side that you are on but I believe that if you do a good and just job you will be rewarded with happiness which in Aristotle's opinion is the main goal. One of Aristotle's beliefs is The Teleology of Nature which says that the end goal of all humans should be happiness and if a president did a good job then how could they not be happy with that. Aristotle also says that knowledge is the best way to find happiness and when you are the president you will receive knowledge that most Americans couldn't even dream of. I also believe that if we had a truly just president then they would equally distribute some of that money to some of the causes you stated, but because the political system being so tarnished it would be difficult for a person like that to keep up with the flashy election we currently have.
ReplyDeleteI would like to say in regards to the safety issue that I would rather be safe then sorry. I agree that it would be awesome to have a president we could just sit down and chat with, but also it would be devastating to have presidents killed more often then not (especially after all the money that people spend on there presidency).
I agree with Matt when he pointed out that it would be very hard to meet with the president considering the work load he must deal with actually being president. I would not be for having personal sit-down conversations with the president because quite frankly I believe it would be a waste of time. The point of having elected leaders is to sum up the voice of the people into the men and women making up the Congress and the House. This is why we need to be educated on who we vote for and why we vote for them.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned in Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention, Obama does hear personal testaments from people through letters written to him. This is about as personal as contact should be with the president in a nation of 3 million people. The voice of the people is meant to be represented by our leaders. If the majority of people are not happy with the decisions being made, then new leaders should be elected.
This is why is is essential that every citizen should vote. The first week of class, we talked about voter registration laws and the amount and type of people these new laws restricted. Personally, I am extremely against voter registration laws. The voice of the majority is no longer accurate because a good percentage of people are now unable to legally vote. When the voting system is able to fairly allow every citizen to vote, and citizens actually do vote, then the voice of the people is heard.
I personally do not think that the accessibility of the president is the first issue at hand with connecting the president to the ideals of the people. If we were to increase the accessibility of the president, then there would be no way for him or her to micromanage the ideas of the individual. We elect representatives, such as congressmen and senators to make sure that the ideas of the people are heard in federal government. With this system in place the president has a greater chance of managing the ideas of the people. As for the amenity of the secret service, if we are to trust a person with the health of the nation, would we not take the necessary measures to make sure that he is safe? If we were to loose the person that we trust with the country would be in a much worse state than the one we are in with a president who is protected.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carrie that a lot of inequality in our political system stems from unjust things such as voter registration laws. If having the voices of the American people heard is what makes a political system just then laws such as voter ID laws are completely contradictory to that. Besides being unconstitutional, these laws give unfair advantages to the candidates that aren't going to have the best interest of the lower and middle class in mind and will continue to pass laws that are disadvantageous to them. So until these laws do not exist anymore, our political system will continue to be unjust. Also on the point of presidential amenities, something like secret service is an unquestionable necessity especially with the radicals who have such strong opinions about the President, no matter who it is. After the assassination of JFK I do not think anyone has ever thought that the Presidents have had too much protection. While I do agree that it is realistically impossible to please everyone, I think it could do our country some good to reevaluate our political system and compare to those countries who seem to have a better system implemented.
ReplyDelete