I usually try not to directly attack the character of political figures in my writing. Our politicians are reflections of us, which means they are not on the leading edge of whatever they are supposed to be leading.
For this article, I’m going to make an exception. The American political left has mythologized John Fitzgerald Kennedy. In his short rein as the 35th President, it is said that he said some great things, did some great things, and won the brinkmanship game with the Russians. A real leader for those times. But despite all this greatness, Kennedy struggled to keep an approval rating of 50%. He never had overwhelming approval of the American electorate like the myth seems to suggest.
As the history books were being written after his assassination, the world found out about the many affairs of President Kennedy. The man had a lot of sex on his mind, and his handlers hid and enabled his trysts.
I can hear the cavilling that what people do in their private lives should have no bearing when being judged for their public lives. President Kennedy said some great things, did some great things, and won the brinkmanship game with the Russians. What he did in his off hours does not matter. Right?
Time to digress a bit.
I must have led a sheltered life. The young men I hung around with either had steady girlfriends or were celibate, but more reluctantly than voluntarily. If a few of us were regarded as players, their one-night stands were infrequent, and alcohol was usually a factor in the conquest.
Then I met my first truly promiscuous person, Roy. Here is my article about him.
I shall summarize this article. Roy was a true player. He had sex with 200 different women a year. Classy, good-looking women. His life revolved around getting the next woman into his bed.
Roy would not be interested in politics. That hobby/occupation would cut into his 200 women a year.
And yet, Mr. Kennedy seemed to be more of the mindset of Roy than someone who has tamed their sexual desires. Can someone really function well in the field of politics when the next piece of tail is on the front of their mind?
I have read a couple of analyses that President Kennedy was made aware of the Russians intention in Cuba weeks in advance. Since Russian nuclear missiles were yet not a crisis, hunting tail won over hunting Russian missile complexes. When the missiles became a crisis, President Kennedy refocused and won the stare-down contest. But should the world have been taken to this edge of a cliff in the first place? And for someone else to get a few pieces of tail?
My sister has a wise saying that sums up this life desire:
“We all have different libidos!”
Some of us have a great desire for sex and will do some silly things to get it. And some of us have a lower desire and/or have learned how to curb that desire. There is no doubt that promiscuous sex puts people into life-changing situations that they really do not need to be in. Too often.
But with my sister’s saying, we remove much of the judgment. For example, the sexually driven need not be concerned about the other half who seem to be sexually repressed. And the sexually reserved need not fret too much about other people having too much fun. Everyone does their own thing without losing sleep what the other side is doing.
The next question is what should be the role of sex in politics? Well, you know my opinion on this matter. I want my elected officials to be in control of their sexual desire, keeping their focus on their job and not bringing the controversy that sex seems to bring into public life.
However, I can’t cast a wise vote in this direction because western democracy is pretty good at masking a promiscuous lifestyle. Reckless candidates can hide behind party banners. Voters just don’t know enough.
In Tiered Democratic Governance, I would be voting for one of my neighbors. So if I see some evidence that a neighbor is a little out of sexual control, I would quietly vote for another neighbor. In this way, I would be casting a vote in the way I would like to cast a vote.
For those neighbors who would disagree with my definition of good character and capacity for governance, they would be free to cast a vote in their own way. Some voters will believe that people who frequently release their libido with multiple partners would perform better in governance. These people could be right.
So voters decide for themselves — and cast their vote accordingly.
Just to clarify, sexual proclivity would not be high on my list of criteria to cast a vote. My primary criterion for “capacity for governance” would be “friendliness.” I see a mature TDG as an organic way for facts and feelings to work up and down the elected tiers, through the TDG advisory boards, and to/from the citizenry. So having a friendly neighborhood representative is important to move his/her neighborhood climate into the decision-making realm — and then bring the TDG climate back into the neighborhood. I want to see my neighborhood representative talking to neighbors. Friendliness, that's #1 (for me).
If I have friendly neighbor and I see that he is changing girlfriends every month or so, I will cast my TDG vote toward another friendly neighbor.
That is as far as I need to take my morality into my TDG politics.
We all have different libidos.
Published on Medium 2023
Mixing Professional Sports & Politics
Prez 47 Satire: Bombs Bursting in Air
