just not the best candidate for the job
I've been keeping track of various discussions on the Ruth Kelly appointment. Objections to objections (it's recursive blogging, y'know) seem to group around the following:
1. It's liberal fascism.
I'm not sure how many more times I can explain this: Kelly is entitled to her beliefs (religious or otherwise) but as those beliefs appear to contradict the demands of her job, wouldn't it be better if a different candidate was found? At very, very least - is it not slightly strange to put someone in charge of fighting a prejudice they havn't directly rejected? Or feel uncomfortable talking about publicly?
2. We shouldn't judge a politician on his or her personal opinions if they have declared they will have no impact on their political activity.
This excuse is a little defunct: we have already seen how Kelly's beliefs have guided her to vote, or rather, repeatedly not vote. While I don't think that individuals are totally unable to put aside personal opinion and act according to a greater good / collective agreement, we seem to have seen someone who has had great trouble with that up until now.
In fact, she's defended that specific political activity as personal activity because it took place under a free vote - a logic that works if you only count obedience to party political whipping as "real" political activity and ignore that possibility "free votes" of conscience might also consider the desires of constituents.
It's just not a comforting track record. I'm not arguing there's an absolute connection between personal beliefs and political activity, but I refuse to pretend that there's no connection at all, particularly on the basis of this particular politician's track record.
I'd also note that it's much easier to be tolerant of Kelly's reluctance to distance herself from the Catholic Church's position on gay people if you or no-one you care about has been described as intrinsically disordered.
2 comments:
Liberal fascism eh? I gotta get me some of that. Is that where a totalitarian government colludes with large corporations to let you do whatever you want against your will?
It's driving me crazy: the line that keeps coming up now is that in a liberal society we tolerate all viewpoints. However, while true, it doesn't mean that all viewpoints are entirely compatible with all other viewpoints, or even jobs - unless, of course, you think that cognitive disonance is the mark of success. Someone who doesn't believe in god, for example, would probably make a poor Catholic priest.
Kelly's beliefs and her reluctance to vote on the issues surrounding them make her a poor candidate for this job: we can do much, much better.
Post a Comment