When running for an election, the most heard information about the candidate is usually something horrible from their past. From Newt’s multiple marriages, Romney’s religious views and even four years ago with the debate of Obama’s birth certificate. How much of a candidate’s personal life should we weigh into our thoughts in voting for that person?
I personally believe that the debate of Newt’s open marriage policy should be weighed more heavily than Romney’s religious values of Mormonism. Most Mormons that practice the religion today are not as extreme as they once were and the religion abolished the idea of allowing polygamy. According to the New York Times, the voters are not looking at his religion but at his experience in the business field. Other voters before the South Carolina primary stated that his religion of Mormonism did not make a decision in their vote towards him. I don’t think people should look at his religion as a reason to not vote for him because of it. Religious views should not be an issue if the president does not plan to make the rest of the nation change religion to his own.
Newt’s whole marriage debacle, however, is completely different from having a different religion. He leads his life in hypocrisy, so what could make his political life any different? According to the Daily Beast, Gingrich supports traditional marriage when he is on his third wife. The last one he was having sexual relationships with while still married to his second. How can we as a people trust a man who cheats on his wife? Gingrich also harassed Bill Clinton for his extra-sexual activities when he was doing the same thing. Can we give a man political power when he says one thing then does the exact opposite? For Gingrich to receive any more votes he needs to explain why his private conduct contradicts with his public policies.
How much emphasis is placed on the candidates personal lives in the end lies in your own personal opinions. Would you rather have a man who cheats, but then still supports traditional marriage? Trust is the basis of all relationships and how can we as a nation trust this man’s decisions to run our country when he struggles to run his own life. With Romney it is not a basis of trust, but more of fear that his religion is different than ours and that he will try to convert us to his own beliefs. No matter who we elect as our president we are the ones who have to explain the gap between what he says and then actually does.
I agree that Newt’s questionable morals in his marriages should weigh more heavily against him than Mitt Romney’s religious views. In the first place, one of the things Americans take pride in is the fact that the church is separated from the state. Because of this, Mitt Romney’s personal religious beliefs should not be taken into account. Now if he were to have questionable morals in his day to day life, I agree that those should affect how people vote. It should affect how people vote for every candidate because actions matter. As the old saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words.” If a candidate says pretty things to the public, but does ugly deeds behind closed doors, how can we trust them to make good decisions for our country?
ReplyDeleteI agree that Newt’s multiple marriages should be considered over Romney’s choice of religion. A candidate’s religion should not be an issue in a political debate unless that religion causes harm or discriminates against others. When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960 many protestant voters were worried about his Roman Catholic religion. However, he felt so strongly that there should be a separation of church and state that he was able to win the election. Romney faces the same challenge that JFK had. He too believes in the separation of church and state which is very beneficial to him in the election.
ReplyDelete