In case you missed it while waiting for the next NFL player to beat up someone, Hillary Clinton, who is in Iowa theoretically testing the waters for a Presidential bid, answered this way when pressed by an activist on the rope line to give her views on President Obama’s delay of his promised executive order granting some privileges to illegals…
“I think we have to elect more Democrats.”
What did she intend to convey by this, and can such an intent possibly be defended? Some possibilities:
A. Translation: “I am running for President, and to be successful, I can’t possibly tell you my real views on this topic, since whatever position I take will lose votes. So I’m going to answer with a non-sequitur, as if I didn’t hear the question.”
Is this ethical? No. It’s an important issue, and if she is running for President, she has an obligation to communicate her views. If she has a position but doesn’t have the integrity and courage to communicate it, that’s cowardly and a breach or responsibility.
B. Translation: “We risk losing at the polls in November if voters know what the President really intends to do, and those who stand to benefit from his unilateral act circumventing the democratic process will vote Democratic anyway, even if the delay infuriates them. So it’s the smart move.”
Is this ethical? Surely not. It’s an admission that the President is trying to gull low-information voters, and that she approves of the strategy. It’s an expression of support for allowing the deportation of human beings for speculative political gain. It’s an endorsement of “the ends justify the means.”
C. Translation: “Well, however and whenever he does it, and whatever harm it does to the nation and the rule of law, and whatever long-term effects it has, all that matters to me is that it will result in more Democratic voters in future elections.”
Is this ethical? Absolutely not. This would be an expression of the worst and most Machiavellian reason imaginable to undermine U.S. sovereignty and permit law breakers to profit.
D. Translation: “Look, I think I can get elected by single-issue women who really don’t care about any of this stuff but just want someone with two X chromosomes in the White House, just like African-American voted for Obama despite the fact that he’s weak, feckless and clueless. I don’t need to take positions on polarizing issues, and I don’t have any positions: I’ll say and do whatever it takes to stay in power, just like my husband. Remember when that NPR interviewer tried to get me to admit that I changed my position on gay marriage and I slapped her down? I said, ‘I have a strong record, I have a great commitment to this issue, and I am proud of what I’ve done and the progress we’re making.’ In other words, nothing. That’s going to be my answer on everything, and given who the Republicans have to run against me, it will be enough.”
Is this ethical? Far from it. It breaches the duty of allowing an informed electorate to choose its leaders based on what they really stand for, playing instead to group identification politics, the lowest common denominator.
Is there another interpretation?
Source and Graphic: Business Insider
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts, and seek written permission when appropriate. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work or property was used in any way without proper attribution, credit or permission, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at firstname.lastname@example.org.