From Pine View Farm

Tats for Tits 2

Michael Serconish is a conservative columnist and radio host who I find an interesting read.

Though I usually disagree with him, I often find his reasoning to be sensible and understandable (unlike Charles Krauthammer and Cal Thomas, who exemplify the “say whatever sounds good today regardless of what I said yesterday” school of argument).

He does not toe the Fox News line and dares to take positions that more orthodox conservatives would not be willing to state in public. He thinks; he does not parrot.

He often thinks wrong, of course, but he thinks (I once said to Atrios that Smerconish’s writings have “a certain ‘everyman’ feel, sort of like Fred Flintstone with a typewriter”).

Now comes Smerconish arguing that politicians’ personal lives are under too much scrutiny, citing Mitch Daniels and Arnold Swarzennegger as examples. A nugget:

The irony is that boorish personal behavior among the political elite may be fueled by the same personality traits that voters consistently seek out in elected officials.

Frank Farley, professor of psychology at Temple University and a former president of the American Psychological Association, believes that many of the factors that make for a successful politician – most significant, a predisposition toward risk-raking – also lead those individuals to behave badly in their personal lives.

Farley says these individuals have a “type T personality” – the T stands for thrill. They’re drawn to unpredictable, high-profile, challenging jobs, making politics the perfect career. According to Farley, the very qualities that persuade voters that type T’s are best-suited for that business – independent streak, strong will, magnetic personality – can also drive personal misbehavior.

He goes on to argue that, unless there is evidence of public misconduct, perhaps it would be best not to overemphasize “personal misbehavior” in assessing qualifications for public office.

Left unspoken in the the phrase “personal misbehavior” is one word, as this column specifically seems to apply to “personal mating misbehavior.”

Also missing was this: it was conservative, specifically, “family values” Republicans–you know, the ones commonly found in airport restrooms and on Craig’s List and in bed with persons other than their spouses–who made personal behavior fair game.

In doing so, they made themselves fair game.

What goes ’round and all that.

Share

2 comments

  1. George Smith

    May 30, 2011 at 10:39 am

    Schwarzenegger’s not under too much scrutiny. He did this to himself.
    Short attention span theatre here. The Los Angeles Times established that he was a womanizer and had a history of being abominable with women before he was elected governor. It published the news and Schwarzenegger immediately went on the offensive, accusing the paper of dirty tricks and distortions to keep him from the political seat. He had a teflon quality and great populist sentiment. That sentiment was misguided, as it turned out, but similar to the counterproductive rage of the Tea Party and disaffected now. And it resulted in the election of someone who made things much worse. If you look at the record Schwarzenegger had also been accused by others and successfully shrugged these things off.
    If the current scandal had erupted while he was still in office I’m betting he would have been forced to resign. And he seems to be an example of someone who can’t or won’t control his appetites, perhaps believing that no matter what he did, people would not find out, or if they did, it would not matter because he was … Arnold.
    So from the standpoint of being in California I think many would say what’s come to him has been building and media scrutiny is richly deserved. When in office Arnold was not liked by his GOP partymen in the state legislature. They thwarted him at every turn as he was not far right enough for them and did see that the financial situation with the budget needed changing, through taxation too. So there was no political element to this.
    Anyway, that’s it. Do give my updated Arnold tune, “Hey Cutie”, a listen. It’s apolitical. 😉

     
  2. Frank

    May 30, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    I think the Arnold is no different from many others at his level of income and fame.

    They are part of the entitlement society; they think they are  entitled to take what they want, especially if they want it from a woman.

    I will still delight in the Family Values snake biting (or whatever it does) the Republicans in the ass.

    And the Republicans have really screwed Cali. It’s mind-boggling how much they have damaged the state and its citizens.