Our returning Governor, Scott Walker, was sworn into office today for his second four year term. Already there is talk of him running for President in 2016.
As a resident of this state I’m disappointed in his politics from the stand point of the commitment he has sworn too and its trustworthiness. I’ll not be fond of a Governor that will spend his second year of a four year term on the campaign trail running for an office that will require him to break the very oath he was just sworn in to.
Is ethics involved here? Do ethics matter anymore?
What did he do? Governors running for President regularly campaign while in office. Bill Clinton and Rick Perry were criticized for it, and yet Governors have much better luck running for President than Senators do.
What did he do? He swore an oath, which if elected he would have to break. He agreed to a four year term. He was elected to perform the tasks of Governor, not campaign for an other office. If he wanted to run for President then he shouldn’t have accepted the office and taken the oath. I don’t think the behavior examples being trustworthy or demonstrates any loyalty to the residents of the state that elected him.
The evidence that it is a common enough practice simply holds up a lens that adds additional focus to the question.
The playing field would be narrowed considerably if the only people that ran for President were those not holding elected office already. It does kind of suck that you get voted into a position to do a job, and then use that time to apply for another job. But at the same time, I have to believe that 90% of the people who voted for him knew Scott Walker was a presidential hopeful. Everybody else in the country who’s paying attention does.
I mean, if you really think that campaigning for office gets in the way of performing one’s job duties, then what do you think of a standing president who spends all his time running for re-election? Surely that would be even worse.
Perhaps a narrowing of the field under such circumstances wouldn’t be so bad. It isn’t like a candidate couldn’t have held a prior office, just that they shouldn’t be holding an office if they are going to spend their time campaigning for a different office.
Yes I do agree that a standing president that spends his/her time campaigning for a second term is a similar issue. Worse? I’d not say worse, rather, equally disappointing. A distinction may be drawn between running for the same office during a term and running for a different office during a term that would require you break an oath taken for the current term. If he [Walker] desires to run for president then he should not have taken the oath of office that has a term that conflicts with his political aspirations.
Walker did the same thing during his first term. A politician holding office should let their record in office speak for itself. I lost respect for Obama when he broke a vow he made during his first term campaign regarding a possible second term.
Scott walker is a whore who takes money to fuck over his state.
Probably the worst governor in the country. All he does is bend over and
takes it from the cock brothers. Anti-anything that actually help people.
If he was on fire, I wouldn’t even piss on him.
He deserves to rot in hell forever for what he has done so far to the poor people of
Wisconsin. Side note, I spent a lot of my childhood in Wisconsin having cousins there.
I guess I just don't see what the big deal is if the people voting for him knew, when they were voting, that he would be running for higher office. The folks that elected him knew this was going to happen, and they didn't mind, so what's the problem? Now, if he said "Vote for me and I promise I'll devote 100% of my energy to the state and not seek higher office," and then he turns around and does it, that's certainly problematic. I could even see a state having some law to prohibit running for higher office when in term (if it would be constitutional, I dunno).
EDIT: I’m only half disagreeing with you, really. All else being equal, I too would prefer a Governor that is going to stick it out the full four years to one that isn’t. But of course, all else is never equal. If the people preferred a guy who’s going to shirk his duties halfway through his term to go run for President to the pros and cons of the other candidate, then so be it.
I would only say worse because a President has more important duties than a Governor. And my point in bringing this up is not to bash any particular president, but only to say that every president ever does this.
“EDIT: I’m only half disagreeing with you, really. All else being equal, I too would prefer a Governor that is going to stick it out the full four years to one that isn’t. But of course, all else is never equal. If the people preferred a guy who’s going to shirk his duties halfway through his term to go run for President to the pros and cons of the other candidate, then so be it.”
I too admit to playing the “it is what it is card” (so be it), and is why I ask the “regarding ethics” questions.
Shit happens, sure, but are we aiming for shit or just settling for it, cause that’s all we get? Dig?
Well, politics isn’t a purely ethical thing, because you’re always choosing from among non-ideal options. Ethics is certainly a concern, but it’s not theoretical space.
As to the question of if it’s ethical to ditch an office to run for a higher office partway through your term, it seems to me that comes down to coercion and disclosure. If you were upfront about your intentions, and the people had the option to vote for the other guy, I’m not seeing the ethical issue.
I would say that what you aim for matters very little with ethics. If you do anything in the name of “the greater good” you are most likely a monster, and unethical. Hugely because, we humans are so often very wrong about what we know and how we define good.
Supposing we had a perfect understanding, then yes, what is aimed for would matter more. How you climb the ladder well mater a lot more if you must come back down.
“Well, politics isn’t a purely ethical thing, because you’re always choosing from among non-ideal options.”
Perhaps, but the “sworn to uphold” parts really do involve ethics. Non-ideal options are rather par for the course that can be dealt with ethically. What part of >non-ideal< voids ethical consideration? It seems the less ideal a situation, the more applicable ethics would be.
The situation is, he has not been “up front” with his intentions, or there would be no speculation regarding his run. He took the oath of office for a four year term, that was ‘him’ speaking an intention, just not sure whether it was his honest intent.
Breaking an oath, your sworn word, isn’t an ethics issue?
To ‘know’ of a good ‘chance’, that’s some fine certainty of intention there, and it has nothing to do with the question of the unethical nature of taking an oath with the intention of breaking it. He has given his word of intention on the matter, swore an oath. We’ll see what that turns out to be worth. Demonstrates a lack of character; villainous.