PoliticalPoints: Politics quick, fast & in a hurry.

In the wake of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice declining a nomination to replace Gov. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, some Republican pundits and politicians whirled angry, sexist and racist comments while explaining their dislike for Rice even being considered. In analytical discussion about why a republican candidate (i.e. Mitt Romney) didn’t win the election last month, many public figures in the GOP concluded that a change of attitude and approach needed to come with low-income, female, student and racial minority voters. Guess that change has yet to arrive. Allow me to make it clear that NOT all republicans are racist, sexist, classist or homophobic, nor are all of their ideas toxic and negative. I believe the party has garnered the reputation for being the aforementioned, not because it’s a party ideal, but because of the backgrounds or personal attitudes of those who represent it. What bothers me most about this sudden approach epiphany is that it doesn’t seem to come from a pure place. There isn’t a desire to appeal or be more sensitive to the concerns of these voter groups because it’s fair or wrong to be prejudiced or exclusive; it’s all about getting more votes and winning elections. This is why some people don’t trust politicians and have little faith in government.

As most likely know, highly decorated and revered military general and CIA director David Petraeus resigned in early November after his affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, was exposed. Petraeus joins the lengthy list of American government officials caught in extramarital scandal, but this time, the response of the media and public was a little different. Usually angry, unforgiving, critical and demanding a resignation from a position of power, crowds seemed to feel sorry for the officer and wished he hadn’t stepped down. Does this mean our morality is deteriorating as a culture or have we become more benevolent and merciful? I think we’re just starting to better evaluate relevancy.

In the years after President Bill Clinton’s 2001 impeachment in which he lied under oath about the details of his own affair, many in media began to question whether the punishment fit the crime. Yes, he broke the law, but media and political analysts were looking at a bigger picture. Some made the argument that our cultural reactions to the transgressions of public figures is so harsh, that it could’ve pushed Clinton to lie to cover it up and we ended up losing a president who stabilized the economy over an issue that only affected his home life. Taking it a step further, imagine the reduction on smear campaigns if we only responded to scandals that correlate with the duty of public office. Politicians might have to actually rely on only politics to get ahead of their opponents, but that’s another issue for another day, I suppose.

All of these events have us talking about fairness and when a personal indiscretion should cause you to lose your job, consider resignation or be denied a position (by the way, as of this time, it hasn’t been concluded that Petraeus’ affair lead to confidential information being compromised). It’s been widely reported that employers and college admission counselors are now taking advantage of social media and browsing what they can of candidate profiles before making a decision. This is absolute crap to me. I have so many issues with this practice. First, let me say I find a lot of things about the traditional interview process discriminatory and unfair (for example, the over-emphasis on appearance. Not everyone can afford nice dress-wear, but they might be able to do a job well). Assessing a candidate based on their Facebook or Twitter page opens all kinds of doors for discrimination, not to mention it’s an infringement of privacy (are they going to ask for personal diaries or talk to our priests next?). If job-seekers are regularly discriminated against in the traditional process with laws in place, imagine the rate of prejudice when social media is factored in. Who’s to say that an employer won’t disqualify a job-seeker simply because they have opposite political views or over something petty like being a fan of Britney Spears? It might be over an unsavory status or suggestive picture, but how do we formally and fairly define “unsavory” and “suggestive” and how it correlates to the job position? Formal background checks, job references, resumes and interviews should tell you all you need to know about a candidate’s ability to perform a task well. Whether they hit the gay bar last week has nothing to do with it. 

The reality of it is if everyone was denied a job for personal gaffes, no one would have work. My stance is that if one’s missteps or personal choices doesn’t harm anyone or literally damage an establishment or company, they should be able to get and keep a job. Thoughts?