Dan Calabrese, my colleague here at the Michigan View, pointed out some significant problems with the logic employed by one Susan Demas (MLive.com writer) regarding Weinergate. I’d like to address something else.
Demas wrote, in part, “But I really don’t care if politicians lie about their personal lives. There. I said it. That’s my libertarian side.”
Many people think that “libertarian” and “libertine” are synonymous. Demas’ comments reinforce that misconception. The former is a political philosophy; the latter is a moral philosophy (or amoral or immoral philosophy, depending on your point of view).
Confusing the two is part and parcel of a bigger problem in our political system: The belief that if something is morally desirable, “there ought to be a law” to compel people to act accordingly.
To be sure, laws reflect moral positions. “Thou shalt not kill” comes to mind. But impulsively translating moral understanding into laws can often lead to trouble. So “concern for the poor” leads us to disastrous “war on poverty” (folks: Poverty has won); the idea that enslaving oneself to narcotics is a bad idea has led to the “war on drugs,” with all its collateral damage.
A person can call for a limited role of government (libertarian) while still having a moral code (that is, not be a libertine). And I’d like to think that a large number of self-identified libertarians hold that lying is wrong, even if it is “just about sex.”
First published by the Detroit News: http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php?blogid=2486