politics

I love Mitt Romney, but he is utterly wrong.

Human ethics do not apply to state actors. We accept this the moment we grant a monopoly on violence to the state.

Morality cannot be the rubric we apply to political leaders. It is dangerous to do so.

The relevant lens is the national interest.

Crypto @ Coinbase, foreign policy, political theory. yugacohler.twitter

Follow /yugacohler

It isn’t just Mitt Romney. This belief is shared by many a wise man. Take the Federalist paper 57: “The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society…”

I’d love to hear more from you on this. I only see unjustified statements. “X is wrong. It can’t be this or that. It must be this.” 

Why or why not? Long cast or thread if you must.

I don't believe the character mentioned by Mitt is so vague. At least no more vague than national interest. I also tend to believe character and action are congruent. I wouldn't discount the relevancy so easily. I suspect Mitt's idea of good character is closer to a traditional Greco-Roman/Enlightenment ideal than many today can consider. This makes me want to say something like "Only in a world spotlighted by Cardi Bs and Trumps, would a term like "character" lose meaning." I'm not entirely convinced of that last part though.

What you just quoted - "most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society" - is, in my opinion, far closer to "ability to pursue the national interest," than it is some vague notion of "character."