# Politics: Beliefs vs. What's 'Right'



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm not looking for this thread to become a debate, I'm just looking for examples of something because I can't think of any myself.

So, can you think of any instances where a politician has either promoted or implemented something that is in conflict with their personal beliefs but which they thought was right and/or proper for the country?

A hypothetical example would be a religious politician who considers same-sex marriage immoral but who acts in favour of it to uphold the nation's secularism.

Examples don't have to be religious in nature. I'm just searching for anything you can think of because this strikes me as being a sign of a true 'statesman', but something which is utterly lacking in modern politics.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Does it count if all of our politicians talk about equality but do nothing to fight racist drug laws?


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Does it count if all of our politicians talk about equality but do nothing to fight racist drug laws?


I think Poley is asking for something positive, not another politician-bash.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

In 1984 David Lange was elected PM of New Zealand on an anti-nuclear ticket. New Zealand was declared a nuclear-free country. I think this probably cost us a lot of goodwill with the US as US ships were not permitted to visit NZ as they would neither confirm nor deny that they were carrying nuclear weapons.

I'm not saying David Lange was a hero, he was pressured by the country and the party to do what he did, but you could say that principles were being put ahead of economic self-interest.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Polednice said:


> So, can you think of any instances where a politician has either promoted or implemented something that is in conflict with their personal beliefs but which they thought was right and/or proper for the country?


Mikhail Gorbachev, when he put his signature to the document that allowed Russia to secede from the Soviet Union. Gorbachev's personal belief (at least up until then) was that the USSR should remain in one piece. He knew that it would fall apart if Russia left, and also that he would lose his job, but he signed the paper anyway.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Eisenhower sending troops to enforce Brown v. Board of Education in Little Rock. 

Jefferson making the Louisiana Purchase.


----------



## BradPiano (Dec 22, 2011)

Reagan (a Christian), when first in office, was Pro-Abortion. Though, by the end of his presidency he was Pro-Life.

In modern times, Newt Gingrich (a Christian) said that it is America's responsibility to give money to those less fortunate if they're rich. Which is communism. Just sayin'...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

BradPiano said:


> Reagan (a Christian), when first in office, was Pro-Abortion. Though, by the end of his presidency he was Pro-Life.
> 
> In modern times, Newt Gingrich (a Christian) said that it is America's responsibility to give money to those less fortunate if they're rich. Which is communism. Just sayin'...


Nice regurgitation of cold war propaganda there! Might want to take a history lesson. Maybe a politics class to. 

Thanks to others for your more sane suggestions. I shall read a little more into them.


----------



## BradPiano (Dec 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Nice regurgitation of cold war propaganda there! Might want to take a history lesson. Maybe a politics class to.
> 
> Thanks to others for your more sane suggestions. I shall read a little more into them.


Really? What immaturity...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

BradPiano said:


> Really? What immaturity...


I know, I'm despicable.


----------



## BradPiano (Dec 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I know, I'm despicable.


Sorry, just kind of made me mad. I'm koo now


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

BradPiano said:


> Sorry, just kind of made me mad. I'm koo now


That's a shame. I was looking forward to some enmity.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

BradPiano said:


> Reagan (a Christian), when first in office, was Pro-Abortion. Though, by the end of his presidency he was Pro-Life.
> 
> In modern times, Newt Gingrich (a Christian) said that it is America's responsibility to give money to those less fortunate if they're rich. Which is communism. Just sayin'...


Reagan changed his view on abortion but never politically went against his personal view. On the other hand, Mario Cuomo was a Catholic who personally opposed abortion and birth control but politically supported them.

Giving money to the less fortunate is a Christian view not a communist policy. But yes, Gingrich's party (Republicans) does not favor giving money to the less fortunate. So yes, Gingrich went with his personal view against his political party although I'm not sure he ever voted that way as a politician.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Anyway (trying to maintain fences here), Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Reagan (while not always acting together, and often acting at odds) accomplished something so amazing that I could scarcely comprehend it at the time. Russia left the Soviet Union--who would ever have thought of that? Do you remember when you first heard about it?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> Reagan changed his view on abortion but never politically went against his personal view. On the other hand, Mario Cuomo was a Catholic who personally opposed abortion and birth control but politically supported them.
> 
> Giving money to the less fortunate is a Christian view not a communist policy. But yes, Gingrich's party (Republicans) does not favor giving money to the less fortunate. So yes, Gingrich went with his personal view against his political party although I'm not sure he ever voted that way as a politician.


I don't see how Christian / communist are opposed in this case. At least in the early days the apostles are said to have had all things in common, and as far as Bible stuff goes, nothing is easier than finding lines about God instructing wealthy/powerful people to treat poor/powerless people well.

By this standard, if more of the rich and powerful people of the past 170 years had been Christian, there never would've been communism.


----------



## BradPiano (Dec 22, 2011)

science said:


> I don't see how Christian / communist are opposed in this case. At least in the early days the apostles are said to have had all things in common, and as far as Bible stuff goes, nothing is easier than finding lines about God instructing wealthy/powerful people to treat poor/powerless people well.
> 
> By this standard, if more of the rich and powerful people of the past 170 years had been Christian, there never would've been communism.


I was obviously misunderstood. I do think that rich people should help poor people but I don't think the government should be forcing it by taxing them more than everyone else. I believe it should be charitable.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

BradPiano said:


> I was obviously misunderstood. I do think that rich people should help poor people but I don't think the government should be forcing it by taxing them more than everyone else. I believe it should be charitable.


I know, right, and what's with all this nonsense about taxing people in order to pay for state education? Schools should be funded by private donations from whoever thinks education is important.


----------



## BradPiano (Dec 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I know, right, and what's with all this nonsense about taxing people in order to pay for state education? Schools should be funded by private donations from whoever thinks education is important.


What are you talking about? I understand you're trying to be sarcastic but these are two completely different things.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

BradPiano said:


> What are you talking about? I understand you're trying to be sarcastic but these are two completely different things.


Indeed they are different things. One of them is stupid schools scrounging off my income to indoctrinate my kids with communism, and the other is lazy hobos trying to get a free ride.


----------



## BradPiano (Dec 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Indeed they are different things. One of them is stupid schools scrounging off my income to indoctrinate my kids with communism, and the other is lazy hobos trying to get a free ride.


Surely then you can find an appropriate private school for your children to go to that will feed them whatever you believe in.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

BradPiano said:


> Surely then you can find an appropriate private school for your children to go to that will feed them whatever you believe in.


I pay a Catholic priest who's _very_ friendly with the kids to home-school my children, and I dodge paying tax as much as possible but still too much of my wages is lining the pockets of politicians.


----------



## BradPiano (Dec 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I pay a Catholic priest who's _very_ friendly with the kids to home-school my children, and I dodge paying tax as much as possible but still too much of my wages is lining the pockets of politicians.


I hear you. That's all that the government wants is more money to spend.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BradPiano said:


> I hear you. That's all that the government wants is more money to spend.


This makes some sense to me, but I think politicians want power more than they want the government to spend money. I can't understand, if government spending is their main motivation, why they don't raise taxes - especially on people who have tens or hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars of disposable wealth.

But if we say that what they want is power (i.e. funds for re-election campaigns, friendly media treatment, and nice sinecures after their service, and so on), then their behavior makes sense.


----------



## BradPiano (Dec 22, 2011)

science said:


> This makes some sense to me, but I think politicians want power more than they want the government to spend money. I can't understand, if government spending is their main motivation, why they don't raise taxes - especially on people who have tens or hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars of disposable wealth.
> 
> But if we say that what they want is power (i.e. funds for re-election campaigns, friendly media treatment, and nice sinecures after their service, and so on), then their behavior makes sense.


Yes. This would be the better answer. They are all after power. But then again, money is closely related to power.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

BradPiano said:


> In modern times, Newt Gingrich (a Christian) said that it is America's responsibility to give money to those less fortunate if they're rich. Which is communism. Just sayin'...


I could care less what Gingrich says. In reality he has supported tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.


----------



## BradPiano (Dec 22, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I could care less what Gingrich says. In reality he has supported tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.


Yep. Gingrich is full of contradictions. Like me


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Gingrich is full of sh#t, actually. But that's par for the course. He's a politician.


----------



## BradPiano (Dec 22, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Gingrich is full of sh#t, actually. But that's par for the course. He's a politician.


Haha I really like that metaphor. And yes he is. In my opinion, he married into the Republican party.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Ummm... would it be too much to ask if we can return to the thread-topic?


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

Polednice said:


> So, can you think of any instances where a politician has either promoted or implemented something that is in conflict with their personal beliefs but which they thought was right and/or proper for the country?


Julia Gillard, the Australian Prime Minister, convinced the previous Prime Minister to dump Carbon pricing. When he did so, he was so weakened politically that she did a Lady Macbeth and knifed her way into the top job. She rushed into an election promising no carbon tax, but was forced into a minority government with the Greens. The Greens soon forced her to break her election promise and introduced a Carbon tax. As a face saver, she tried to pretend that this was a fundamental reform which she believed in (despite the well publicized recent history). This was passed in parliament a month ago, and will be introduced in 2012.

So, we now have a Carbon tax, which I believe is the correct thing to do. But it was brought in by a Prime Minister who either did not believe in it, or halfheartedly believed in it. Rightly or wrongly, the public think that her hand was forced - and this hugely unpopular tax is seen as the price she had to pay to retain minority government.

So this is not an example of a politician putting aside her personal beliefs for the greater good.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

What is the target of the Carbon Tax? Or, to rephrase the question:

How much carbon does the carbon tax tax, if the carbon tax does tax carbon?

[with apologies to groundhogs everywhere]


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

Nobody really knows. The nominal rate is AUD$23/tonne, but there are so many rebates and subsidies to protect our industry that the actual cost will probably be far lower ... except for those companies which don't have clever accountants


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

Harry S. Truman was quite shocked and terrified of the atomic bomb and its destructive power. He hoped to never see it used as a weapon, but when faced with Japans refusal to surrender (and being notified of the costs associated with invading Japan and continuing the war) He had to be the one to make that fateful decision, to drop the little man and fat boy. That must have been an extremely difficult decision to make, and I dont think he was quite satisfied with the decision either.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

/\ Jeez _Igneous_, how did you manage that segue?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> /\ Jeez _Igneous_, how did you manage that *segue*?


Learned a new word today.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> /\ Jeez _Igneous_, how did you manage that segue?


I believe that was a response to the actual OP, Mr. Carbon Tax Derailer


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

In late c19th, first chancellor of united Germany,* Otto von Bismarck* was the first in the world to introduce the old age pension. This went against the grain of his more conservative views, but with this he aimed to 'steal the thunder' from the leftists/Socialists who were gaining ground in the polls & pushing for these kinds of changes. That's what I remember from reading/studying about this ages ago. In hindsight, despite being called the chancellor of "blood and iron" or something like that, Bismarck comes off as quite a moderate. He virtually thought that the next Kaiser of Germany, Wilhelm II, was a loose cannon and too militaristic. In contrast, Bismarck and Wilhem II's father (Wilhelm I, I think) were moderate conservatives. Eventually, Wilhelm II's ideology of getting Germany 'a place in the sun' paved the way for World War I, which proved to be an absolute disaster...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> In late c19th, first chancellor of united Germany, Otto von Bismarck was the first in the world to introduce the old age pension. This went against the grain of his more conservative views, but with this he aimed to 'steal the thunder' from the leftists/Socialists who were gaining ground in the polls & pushing for these kinds of changes. That's what I remember from reading/studying about this ages ago. In hindsight, despite being called the chancellor of "blood and iron" or something like that, Bismarck comes off as quite a moderate. He virtually thought that the next Kaiser of Germany, Wilhelm II, was a loose cannon and too militaristic. In contrast, Bismarck and Wilhem II's father (Wilhelm I, I think) were moderate conservatives. Eventually, Wilhelm II's ideology of getting Germany 'a place in the sun' paved the way for World War I, which proved to be an absolute disaster...


All is, as far as I know, as you say.

Interestingly, Wilhelm II may have merely been less successful than Bismarck at both's common aim: putting off the laborers and maintaining Junker ascendency. Had Wilhelm won the war, though, and let's not forget it was close, he would've been another Bismarck, and the social problems would've been delayed at least another generation.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ I'm not sure with what would have happened had the Germans won the first world war, but I think it's good they didn't, Kaiser Wilhelm II represented the worst of German militarism, it had to be crushed. Apparently Hitler admired him, he thought he was a kindred spirit. Unfortunately it took yet another horrible war to nip this destructive ideology, an even more extreme form of it, finally in the bud.

As for others like this, who did things against their own ideology (another "ancient" one) -* Tsar Alexander II of Russia,* during mid 19th century, ended serfdom (feudalism, or the last vestiage of it) in the Russian Empire. Apparently he was as moderate as the tsars got, many of them throughout history either being weak puppets or total ratbags. For his efforts, Nicholas II obviously became a target, some of his more liberal policies did not go down well in practice, maybe there were problems with implementing them. I can't remember, I studied this ages ago, as the Bismarck history.

Ironically, Nicholas II was assasinated by Russian anarchists, and he was followed by the same old same old tsars - oppressive, or puppets. Until the event in 1917 which wiped all this out - whether you call it Bolshevik coup (as I do) or Russian Revolution, tsarism was history thanks to that, for good or ill...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> As for others like this, who did things against their own ideology (another "ancient" one) -* Tsar Alexander II of Russia,* during mid 19th century, ended serfdom (feudalism, or the last vestiage of it) in the Russian Empire. Apparently he was as moderate as the tsars got, many of them throughout history either being weak puppets or total ratbags. For his efforts, Nicholas II obviously became a target, some of his more liberal policies did not go down well in practice, maybe there were problems with implementing them. I can't remember, I studied this ages ago, as the Bismarck history.


So when you say that this was against his own ideology, are you saying that he thought serfdom was good, but he also thought the country needed to progress without it? That would be in line with my original question - I just don't know enough about Russian history to assess what you mean.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^It was ages since I studied Tsar Alexander II's "liberal" policies such as ending serfdom. My memory is sketchy, but I do remember that he came up to great opposition from both sides of the divide - conservatives and radicals. His successor, Alexander III, bought back absolutism and extreme conservatism (eg. ended the earlier move towards reform by Alexander II). Alexander II of course still maintained the Russian empire and monarchy, so he did believe in tradition to a degree and reform from the top (not revolution, definitely). In a way he was treading on shaky ground, as is turned out by his assasination (see below). In short, from what I remember, he didn't believe that serfdom was good, but reform had to happen under the banner of the status quo. Doing away with serfdom was coming from not necessarily a purely ideological impulse, but an economic one, the growing industries in Russia's and the empire's big cities needed workers, simple as that. Similar to what was at least partially behind Abe Lincoln's arguments to end slavery in the USA at roughly the same time.

Sorry, I made a typo in that earlier post. It was Tsar Alexander II who was assassinated by Russian Anarchists, that was in the 19th century. Nicholas II who I wrongly mentioned, was to be the last tsar of Russia, he & his family were murdered by the Bolsheviks after they took power in 1917.

I'm sorry I can't help in depth but a search on Wikipedia should give you some basic answers, or something to go begin with in fleshing out your question, I'd think...


----------

