This is a class blog for the students of POLSCI 426: Congressional Politics at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.

Edwards’s Cancer Has Spread Into One of Her Hips

I find it an interesting debate over what Edwards should do with his family situation: he's got one. Having a family is a priority to him and some think this is a virtue for a future president while others see it as a vice.

Question: Is is a good or bad thing that Congressmen and women have the darndest time having a family and a political career?

There are so many examples of failed marriage, supposed cheating, and the likes. Should politicians be expected to have a perfect family life and do a good job in office?

5 comments:

deborahmweigel said...

I have always wondered the same thing myself. I think it is very important that if you decide to run for office that you have a strong family to support you. But what happens to this family throughout the campaign? Families get drug through the mud and I think this discourages many good candidates from running at all. I also am a firm believer that if you cannot keep a balanced and loving household, that it would be hard to succeed in a political office. Personally I would like to feel as though my representative understands and has compassion for families, and does not base all their decisions on pure logic. This is what makes for great leaders.

It reminds me of a famous Reagan quote "persuade them through reason, and motivate through emotion." If you dont have both, it makes ideas difficult to catch on. I do want to say though, that with any job..politician or not, strong families take a lot of work, and its unfortunate that politicians failures end up for all of us to see.

franda2 said...

A person who decides to run for congress, one would think, would have the support of their family before they even throw their hat into the ring. They know what comes with being a spouse of a politician. You gotta give a little to get a little.

"JPO" Joseph Ohler said...

Given a sustained population increase in the United States, I believe that more politicians should be single (and avowedly non-promiscuous) to subtly discourage so many people from having families. Otherwise, how will there possibly be enough living space and other resources for people to not feel stifled? Granted that people can adjust to just about any circumstance that does not outright kill them, but there is a carrying capacity that not even human organisms can exceed within a particular land space and finite resources. A trend that is gradually increasing in popularity is for people to be more socially isolated. As long as people feel discouraged enough from making procreational advances towards others (and ensuring that any such ideas are quickly stifled by stark emotional coldness), we can eventually shift the status quo away from the bourgeois ideal of multiple children and more towards having the security of self-assurance unimpeded by a spouse’s criticism and children to support. As this lifestyle approaches being the new norm, feedback loop of self-justification and confirmatory behavior will continue this trend towards a new dominant mode of American social behavior. So, at least in theory we would have a Condorcet winner if only our politicians would commit to living less conventional lifestyles in a collective thumb of the nose to elitist and middle-class expectations.

D Schultz said...

Joesph makes some interesting statements, but I think too many politicians already share similarities with Catholic priests that has led to even bigger political problems. But I digress.

meganlwood said...

Americans love their leaders to have big, happy families. Unfortunately no families are perfect. Think about your own, I bet than anyone in this class who ran for Congress would have at least one skeleton in their family closet that might affect their campaign. I know my sweet yet racist grandmother wouldn't be a huge attribute to mine.

Blog Archive