A secret recording of parliament members in Iceland revealed who they really were.

[conuly]

What else are we not hearing from our representatives?

As always, I'm gonna focus on one small thing, namely, the defense of "Well, it was a private conversation!"

This ought to be self-evident and probably is to everybody who isn't a raging hypocrite, but when you're a public figure in a public place, your conversation is not private. And when you, an elected official, go and air your private opinions in public, they are no longer your personal private opinions that are nobody's business but your own. They're information that the public can use when deciding whether or not to vote for you in the upcoming election or, better yet, to mobilize for you to leave office.

Sorry.

It's one thing to say that Joe Q. Random Truck Driver shouldn't be fired from his job for the things he said at a bar one day, or Dr. Random Doctorperson. Elected officials are doing a very different job, and they got it in no small part based on their opinions, so they're SOL on that front.

Comments

[heron61]

Well hell, I thought Iceland was one of the places where male politicians were likely to be less horrid, but this sort of vile nonsense seems endemic for all men in positions of significant power. I'm again sorely tempted to never vote for cis men for any political office if there are any remotely and viable reasonable (in the US meaning Democrat) alternatives.

[quirkytizzy]

This. Sometimes the seemingly universal horridness of men is extremely disheartening. One would hope "Oh, America, we're assholes here so yeah, dudes saying horrible stuff makes sense but surely other places are more enlightened...."

*sigh*

[schneefink]

In Austria we currently have a case of politicians having been recorded in a private place but talking about plans for corruption, and they too are trying to argue that it was a private conversation that should not have been made public. *facepalm*

[dewline]

Well, I'd heard about that instance. They have to be held to account anyway...and from what I'm reading about Austria - admittedly limited in scope for now - they are going to be held to account. Soon. I'm probably naïve to find any small comfort in that from across the Atlantic Ocean here in Canada, but I do.

[delight]

I really, really appreciate Ydanis Rodriguez and Mark Levine more and more every day. (One is my city rep, one is the one I work with.)

[dewline]

Much appreciative of this linkage!

[redsixwing]

This comment consists of me figuring a thing out.

It's one thing to say that Joe Q. Random Truck Driver shouldn't be fired from his job for the things he said at a bar one day, or Dr. Random Doctorperson.

So if Joe Q. Truck Driver or Dr. Random made comments in a bar that revealed they can't be trusted to do their job, they can and should be fired. If Dr. Random believes that proven treatments should be replaced with quackery, or only offered to $population_segment in ways that don't line up with science, it damn well ought to make it back to whoever employs them. If J. Q. Truck Driver likes to brag in public about running around weigh stations, driving high, and dodging the inspector, they should expect a visit from the authorities.

Politicians run on public trust* and thus if they declare in public that half or more of the public cannot trust them, they should expect public outrage in exactly the same way.

*ideally

[archangelbeth]

Yes, that. The job of politicians is one that affects so many people, that if they reveal their public face and private face are that much out of sync...

[redsixwing]

That's a much more concise way of putting it. :D

[archangelbeth]

Ah, but the summary relies on the expanded version! *fistbump of solidarity!*

[cactuswatcher]

The one thing I would add is that politicians sometimes don't seem to care to keep their private conversations very private.

I remember waiting at a gate at the airport, when I heard a booming voice from far across the otherwise empty room. It was a guy discussing legislation on his phone and not in a way most of us would: Procedures, specifics of committee meetings, dates for things to come up. He was not a reporter, not some local politician, or politician's aide but a US Congressman talking louder than I'd be comfortable with doing there. It wasn't as if he was having to talk over a lot of background noise. Maybe it wasn't the most sensitive of material he was discussing, but it was certainly odd to hear somebody talking about it in a loud voice in a public place.

[conuly]

Maybe there's some weird psychology there.

[silveradept]

The way the cartoon frames it as a problem of trust resonates with me. We want people in government who are the people they say they are, not people who put on one face to the public and have another when they assume nobody is looking or listening. If people don't trust that the government will do the things they promise, then government doesn't work.

There's also an interesting thread to pull on for government here in the States, where it seems like the power that is open about what they intend to do, who they intend to hurt, and which of the -isms they intend to enshrine is able to gain popularity and enact their agenda, while the party with better morals and ethics and carefully thought-out plans that try to minimize harm doesn't get much except as reaction to the other party following through with their agenda.