A Very Long and Uneventful Weekend

Wherein I also avoided all news. Today though, I changed my tune to one a little more uptempo. I read a whole bunch of junk, including the Somerville News (apparently, Somerville High School rules!). I mostly learned that Sarah Silverman is funny, Howard Dean is good at his job, and James Carroll is bad at his (registration required). Here's what i jotted down after reading Carroll's op-ed, my initial thoughts and reaction:

Mr. Carroll argues that the dichotomy between public and private morality in politicians is nothing more than political cover, a beard to interest groups who potentially control large blocs of votes. In Governor-elect Kaine’s case, that means that his professed private opposition to the death penalty, true or not, only matters as it relates to his public stance that it is the law in Virginia and if necessary, he will enforce that law. This analysis misses the point that Mr. Kaine’s willingness to subsume his moral objections comes not from a need to pander but from a clear ethical obligation. It’s his job to enforce and execute Virginia’s laws, not to legislate from the Governor’s office. The problem with Mr. Carroll’s argument is that the ethical ground here is far firmer than he would have us believe. The concerns of the Virginians that elected Mr. Kaine will have to trump his personal moral foibles until and unless he can change his citizens’ (or his legislators’) minds. He knew when he ran for Governor that enforcing the death penalty would probably be required of him, no matter his moral objections to it. And it looks like the people of Virginia have decided that they need both Mr. Kaine and the death penalty and he is required to fulfill both of those needs to the best of his ability.

I'm more than sure that there are holes in my logic and I'm equally sure that my rule about ethics in the political workplace is anything but universal. But in Kaine's situation (and in executive positions in general), I think that the responsibility of the officeholder to the imperatives of the electorate come before his or her personal morals. I have much the same view about Judges. It seems like an essential tradeoff to maintain the rule of law.

One caveat though, the imperatives of the electorate aren't always the same things as the desires of the electorate. The real questions to be asking of Tim Kaine and politicians everywhere are whether they can distinguish between the two and if they are willing to go against the latter to provide for the former.