Politics and principles.

[Father Heathen]

It's understandable that people want to support political leaders who share their stance on issues, but surely there has to a limit to how much corruption, incompetence, and misconduct one would be willing to overlook. Or does character and integrity always take a back seat to partisan loyalty?

 

[Rival]

Nope. If he's a sleazebag he won't have my vote.

 

[leibowde84]

It's understandable that people want to support political leaders who share their stance on issues, but surely there has to a limit to how much corruption, incompetence, and misconduct one would be willing to overlook. Or does character and integrity always take a back seat to partisan loyalty?

I think the U.S. President is a perfect example of this. He is the very definition of incompetence and misconduct, and we seem to be heading toward corruption as well. Although the latter has yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Hopefully the Republicans finally turn on him. It's funny ... until the nomination, they acted like they hated the guy. After that, they put all that he had said and done aside and treated him like the King of the Republican Party.

 

[Stevicus]

It's understandable that people want to support political leaders who share their stance on issues, but surely there has to a limit to how much corruption, incompetence, and misconduct one would be willing to overlook. Or does character and integrity always take a back seat to partisan loyalty?

I think much of it might depend on whose ox is gored, as well as the kind of misconduct being addressed. Although that might depend on whether someone does something particularly heinous - like murder, rape, killing puppies - that sort of thing.

Then there's also the matter of whether people actually believe it, especially since many people realize that politics is adversarial and dirty. In an era of "fake news" and false allegations, there may be those who won't accept anything less than extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims.

 

[pearl]

Politics and principles is a contradiction. The only thing different now is that they no longer try to hide it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's understandable that people want to support political leaders who share their stance on issues, but surely there has to a limit to how much corruption, incompetence, and misconduct one would be willing to overlook. Or does character and integrity always take a back seat to partisan loyalty?

Hey man, you gotta support yer team - no matter what. What kind of fan are you if you cut and run?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It's understandable that people want to support political leaders who share their stance on issues, but surely there has to a limit to how much corruption, incompetence, and misconduct one would be willing to overlook. Or does character and integrity always take a back seat to partisan loyalty?

I think this last election kind of showed us that these days it is about partisan loyalty. However, such loyalty is not really an American first, people use go to politically aligned jobs, churches, bars, etc. etc. etc. It was all about party loyalty. But the loyalty is not necessarily the same as polarization; polarization happens because of a lack of centralist in the parties.

What is different now-a-days is the gap between the two parties, not enough moderates are being elected into Congress. There has been an especially sharp turn in the Republicans. People can call me bias for singling out the Republicans if they like but that are the data.

I have actually been casually researching this over the last few days. I have a few graphs, they will be in a spoiler due to size, and when looking at the graphs keep in mind that the Dems and Reps switched ideologies, I think it was back when FDR was president. The first two graphs are of Congress, and the last of the people.

Spoiler: Click to see graph.

First graph explained:

The NOMINATE data has characterized today’s polarization in some interesting ways, namely that the Republican Party has experienced a dramatic shift to the right and ideological moderates in both parties have all but disappeared.

Political polarization at its worst since the Civil War

Second graph explained:

a smoothed histogram of the 3000 configurations after burn-in. The divide between Democrats and Republicans is a very deep one.[...] Of more interest, however, are the clear divisions in the Republican Party shown in the smoothed histogram.

The Divisions in the House Republican Party

Third graph explained:

A recent Pew Report reported that in 1994, 64% of Republicans were more conservative than the median Democrat on a political values scale. By 2014, 92% of Republicans were more conservative than the median Democrat. Democrats have become more consistently liberal in their political values and Republicans have become more consistently conservative. And this has led to increasing political polarization (see HERE and HERE for smart posts on this process by Lisa Wade and Gwen Sharpe). You can see political polarization happening below.

Political Polarization in the U.S. and Social Inequalities - Sociological Images



Truth is had Clinton been elected, it may have very well split the Republican Party in two.

If you want more info go to this page: 114th Congress | Voteview Blog

and their index: Data Download

The section on American polarization: Political Polarization'

Explanation of NOMINATE scores:

http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rvalell1/documents/Nominate_000.pdf

More information:

Political Polarization

 

[Nakosis]

It's understandable that people want to support political leaders who share their stance on issues, but surely there has to a limit to how much corruption, incompetence, and misconduct one would be willing to overlook. Or does character and integrity always take a back seat to partisan loyalty?

The morality is you do what you have to to support whatever group you identify with. Which in some cases may mean to reject an individual who turns out to be sufficiently detrimental to the group. A number of Republicans have already taken this position with Trump for example.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's understandable that people want to support political leaders who share their stance on issues, but surely there has to a limit to how much corruption, incompetence, and misconduct one would be willing to overlook. Or does character and integrity always take a back seat to partisan loyalty?

You started out with "stance on issues".
But you finish with "partisan loyalty".
Is it one or the other...or do you see them as equivalent.
(They're really different for me.)

 

[Politesse]

I do not think party politics lend themselves to firm principles; the parties themselves are too fluid and situational for this. Let alone individual candidates, who if they are slippery types, presumably run for the whatever happens to be the most popular party in their area regardless of any particular principles they or it might hold. Gryffindors may run on principle, but Slytherins are going to do it on numbers.

 

[leibowde84]

I think much of it might depend on whose ox is gored, as well as the kind of misconduct being addressed. Although that might depend on whether someone does something particularly heinous - like murder, rape, killing puppies - that sort of thing.

Then there's also the matter of whether people actually believe it, especially since many people realize that politics is adversarial and dirty. In an era of "fake news" and false allegations, there may be those who won't accept anything less than extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims.

What about incompetence with how they deal with adversity in their job?

 

[DavidFirth]

Isn't politics and principles an oxymoron?

 

[Falvlun]

Isn't politics and principles an oxymoron?

There's not reason they have to be. And I think the assumption, or acceptance, that they must be is a detrimental one.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's understandable that people want to support political leaders who share their stance on issues, but surely there has to a limit to how much corruption, incompetence, and misconduct one would be willing to overlook. Or does character and integrity always take a back seat to partisan loyalty?

Was there ever an incorruptible, competent, and true as an arrow political leader like that? Ever?

 

[Stevicus]

What about incompetence with how they deal with adversity in their job?

That's likely a factor, too, depending on where the adversity comes from. If you're referring to the press, sometimes too much adversity can make it look like the press are piling on, which might trigger a "martyr" effect which might generate sympathy. That may explain why the press would often treat popular (yet flawed) Presidents with kit gloves, such as Reagan, who was known as the "Teflon President." It was similar with Clinton, as those who attacked Clinton would also find themselves under attack.

 

[icehorse]

I'd say that the morality and ethics are on us - and we have to force then onto our leaders.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

99% of all politicians are corrupt, power hungry, egotistical, selfish, bought-off, spineless, hypocritical, conniving cretins. They don't have the interest and welfare of the American people in mind. They are part of an elitist corrupt gang run by people much more powerful than themselves. They are pathetic puppets. MONEY, GREED , AND POWER have always run the world and always will. It's sad but true. Trump is a POS as a human being. It doesn't matter if he's President or someone else, they are all corrupt puppets. POTUS stands for Puppet of the United States,not President.