Which is more important to you when approaching politics?

[Father Heathen]

In some cases do you believe that it's worth sacrificing principles and ethics if it aids a cause you believe in? If so, explain.

 

[Rival]

A politician can be honest, honourable and have all the integrity in the universe but if he's not going to stick to his guns and you can't trust that he seriously believes in his position and that he won't make any u-turns, what's the point of voting for him?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In some cases do you believe that it's worth sacrificing principles and ethics if it aids a cause you believe in? If so, explain.

I'd describe myself as a centrist because of my belief in this.
To be clear, I try to be as consistent and coherent in my worldview as possible, and expect the same from politicians.

However, politicians acting with honour, integrity and honesty would be both novel and transformative in my opinion. For one, they'd be explaining their ideologies openly, and their reasons for decision making.

That seems the best path to me being able to make informed decisions at the polling booth.

 

[sun rise]

To me the "ante" is basic honesty and integrity. Politicians are human beings and I know the low level of honesty in the world today. But some operate below a minimal standard of morality and those need to be not in a position of "trust".

I'm also not totally concerned with consistency. I am more concerned with who they consider their constituency. Do they focus on serving those who elected them or the plutocrats/kleptocrats both individual and corporate?

After that specific policies become of interest to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Policy is most important.
It's about what they'll try to effect.
(Pursue good, not evil.)
Secondarily, it's really great if they're honest, competent, likeable & good looking.

 

[shunyadragon]

The question which is more important does not detract from the importance of both except the second choice is incomplete. the question of agenda/ideology/identity needs to be amplified as the goals for the benefit of the people, and this in and of itself is a difficult question.

 

[Father Heathen]

A politician can be honest, honourable and have all the integrity in the universe but if he's not going to stick to his guns and you can't trust that he seriously believes in his position and that he won't make any u-turns, what's the point of voting for him?

Flip-flopping on promises and commitments isn't very honest, though. Besides, the two choices aren't mutually exclusive. Basically what I'm asking is how many people are willing to tolerate questionable character and conduct for the sake of a cause.

 

[Father Heathen]

Policy is most important.
It's about what they'll try to effect.
(Pursue good, not evil.)
Secondarily, it's really great if they're honest, competent, likeable & good looking.

So you would place behavior on the same level as appearance?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Both are important but I don't think I could choose one or the other. Someone can be honest but have a wretched ideology, and so far I haven't met anyone lacking in honesty and integrity who didn't have a wretched ideology.

I definitely wouldn't only vote on just what they say or what they do, but a combination of both. Actions do speak louder than words but 'So long as he keeps the trains running on time, who cares' is an incredibly dangerous way to support politicians, imo.

 

[Stevicus]

In some cases do you believe that it's worth sacrificing principles and ethics if it aids a cause you believe in? If so, explain.

I think what's most important is staying true to one's stated principles, whatever they may be. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

Of course, in the real world, we might be faced with a choice of the lesser of two evils and have to compromise, which is also a necessity in politics. One can't expect to get their way every time, so a bit of give and take might be necessary.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you would place behavior on the same level as appearance?

I'd rank appearance as the lowest priority.
(Below even a pleasing voice.)

 

[Father Heathen]

Both are important but I don't think I could choose one or the other. Someone can be honest but have a wretched ideology, and so far I haven't met anyone lacking in honesty and integrity who didn't have a wretched ideology.

I definitely wouldn't only vote on just what they say or what they do, but a combination of both. Actions do speak louder than words but 'So long as he keeps the trains running on time, who cares' is an incredibly dangerous way to support politicians, imo.

My poll wasn't intended to be an 'either/or' choice but rather which was more important, no mutual exclusivity implied.

 

[Estro Felino]

Constancy toward political agenda/ideology/identity.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

My poll wasn't intended to be an 'either/or' choice but rather which was more important, no mutual exclusivity implied.

I understand, I just can't figure out which I weigh more, per say.

 

[icehorse]

Flip-flopping on promises and commitments isn't very honest, though. Besides, the two choices aren't mutually exclusive. Basically what I'm asking is how many people are willing to tolerate questionable character and conduct for the sake of a cause.

Ah, I misread the OP. I didn't know we were assessing politicians.

 

[Father Heathen]

Ah, I misread the OP. I didn't know we were assessing politicians.

We're not. I'm asking what you value the most of the two. And no, it's not an X in lieu of Y choice.