Presidential Ethics

As far as ethics are concerned, I think Mike Huckabee is the most ethical nominee.  According to his campaign website, http://www.mikehuckabee.com/about, as Governor of Arkansas, "his administration fought long-standing corruption in the state’s political machine, resulting in numerous indictments and convictions of powerful legislators and other elected officials."  

In 2005, Time Magazine named him one of the five best governors in America and Governing Magazine named him as one of it's "Public Officials of the Year."

He values soldiers and police officers because "they are the only thing standing between our freedom and total anarchy."

As far as relativistic morals and situation ethics, Hilary Clinton leads the pack.  In the book titled, The Seduction of Hillary Rodham, David Brock levels many accusations against her.  Among them are that she has a disdain for compromise, has never accepted legal and ethical structures and lives by an end-justifies-the-means philosophy.  Funnily enough, Mr. Brock is now part of a Clinton-supporting Super PAC (Political Action Committee) called “Correct the Record,” and he claims that his "blinding by the right" led him to write the book.  I tend to think that he might also live by the philosophies of moral relativism and situational ethics.  

Our textbook states that Machiavelli believed that "the end of political stability justifies the means, even if those means include deception..."  If you look at the scandals that Hilary Clinton seemingly has been a part of, she has been very deceptive in her methods.  She has refused to turnover documents and hard drives for examination and was vague in her answers during a Congressional hearing.  The persona that is displayed reflects a person who thinks that her immoral, illegal, and unethical actions were warranted.

Our textbook also references Montaigne's essay "Of Cannibals," where he says that "each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own practice."  Each man is a hypocrite if they believe what another man is doing is worse or different, than what they are themselves doing.

Hilary Clinton is one such hypocrite.  She has said that money is corrupting politics and has denounced super PAC's, yet she is counting on two large one's to support and fund her campaign.  She calls it a "necessary evil."

At the end of the day, I believe that we should have a president who fights and stands up for our country.  Moral relativism would better suit a president because it would allow political stability.  Sometimes, the president might have to do things that are not acceptable to reach that goal, but it is important that he/she try to do things using a moral compass and also do the things that ensure Americans can continue to live with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.