Morals and leadership

Bill Clinton did it (philandering) but he went on to give America one of the largest budget surpluses in its history. His successor, a conservative and family values Republican named George W Bush, took over and left with one of the largest deficits in the country's history.

There are many similar examples. You can research it. The opposite also got: morally perfect people who lead a country to glory and immoral leaders who lead the country to the garbage heap of history.

The bland fact is, a country can go up and down like water tides regardless of who runs it. Don't forget - progress is not just what you can do. Its what the world economy does to you, and markets are amoral. Can you draw a conclusion between who one goes to bed with and how well one runs his public affairs? Personally I say, are you kidding? Too many things disqualify that theory, like leaders who live completely moral lives and bring others through complete hell. Tell me how many lives religious conflicts have cost in history compared with the bloodshed caused by womanizing leaders.

It is a difficult choice I know. Yes nobody wants a leader to set a bad example. Everyone wants a role model who had never laid eyes on another woman, never accepted a drink lest it be seen as bribery, never suffered an old flame who revealed his or her XX pictures for a bribe, never had a child who went on the wrong side of the law. People want the virgin prince in the Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs himself.

I see people clamouring, "If we have an adulterer leading the pack, God help us."

Although why the same people can't be fair and say, "If we have a very moral person (someone like George Bush) leading the pack, God help us," I don't know. America is still reeling from the impact of such a leader today and its not the philanderer Bill Clinton.

Now I can hear you say, "But his moral convictions are not the issue." Ah yes, I agree, because it never was, was it. More important, don't you think honesty is a better yardstick? I'd rather have someone who says yes, I've been a bad boy but that's behind me now than someone who tells me what I should and shouldn't do in my bedroom. Its a simple concept. I don't impose my values on others, others don't impose their values on me.

The reason why they call it private life is because its private, and private means it is no one else's business but the owner's/doer's. That's why the only thing that is immoral in this whole sex scandal business, in my opinion, is this sordid interest in what goes on in someone else's bedroom. You don't want others to do it to you so why do it to others?

Despite what people read into such behaviour, it is, in my opinion, irrelevant to leadership. If a leader is proven to be corrupt, criminal, unjust or incapable to his subjects, then by all means, be angry. Get rid of him. But if you disqualify him simply because of who he went to bed with, and if you feel that strongly about it, then go ahead and elect the morally pure. If you find your choice narrowing down to religious fundamentalists as it may well come down to, then I'd like to see you sit back and enjoy your choice.

(Note: If two people had the same capability, if one has a mistress and the other doesn't, I'll go with the faithful guy. The condition is that both had the same capability. However if the faithful one is hopeless at management compared to the one with the mistress, I'll go with the latter. It may not be the ideal choice but because I live in the real world, I know I can only survive by being pragmatic.)