President Clinton

Assuming that it is true that a United States President may conduct his personal affairs in a way which does not jeopardize his capacity or duties as a political leader, should a United States President be accountable for his personal affairs by the American people whom he represents? This is the question to be discussed. Keep in mind, however, that this question does not deal with whether or not it is acceptable for a president to lie about his personal affairs or whether he should be legally accountable for his personal affairs. Rather, this question deals with whether or not we should require our president to be a moral leader as well as a political one and what standards are appropriate to demand of the man we empower within our nation's highest executive office. This is an important issue because as more and more personal scandals unfold regarding presidents, it is important for the people themselves to decide if it affects their leader and his leadership. It is also important for people to know what they want in a leader so when they read their ballot they know who to vote for.

The position I will take is that the United States President should be held accountable for his personal affairs by the American people whom he represents. I take the position that we should require our president to be a moral leader as well as a political one and that private behavior is relevant to public performance.

My first argument is that people elect the president based on his beliefs, his morals, and his politics. People support the president because he abides by his beliefs, morals, and politics whether they involve his political or personal affairs. The president is accountable for his affairs, political or personal, that reflects his beliefs, morals, and politics. This then makes the political personal. Therefore, the president should be held accountable for his personal affairs by the American people whom he represents.

One objection that can be raised to the foregoing argument is that not everyone elects the president based on his beliefs, his morals, and his politics. Many people have different standards of quality that they expect in their leader. Some care only about politics, while others care only about morals. Also, dedicated party supporters might vote Democrat or Republican simply because they are Democrats or Republicans. Many people also believe that the president's personal affairs are his private business, particularly if it does not effect his duties. Thus the president is not always elected based on his morals because to some people it does not matter just as long as politically he improves our government. The point here is that many people have different criteria that they set up when electing a leader.

It is true that many people have different standards that they demand of a leader. But that does not allow the president to no longer be held accountable for his personal affairs just because he's the president. His position does not separate him in any way from the rest of society when it comes to acting morally within our personal life. Ideally, people should vote for a president based on his beliefs, morals, and politics. However, this ideal is betrayed when the president acts improperly, morally or personally. The objection here makes a good point but does not refute the argument. Most people do not blindly vote for a leader, they learn about what he stands for and how he can help them as well as how he can help better society.

My second argument is that because the president has such great power and because he is a role model, he should be held accountable for his personal affairs because his actions could set a poor example and could reflect on the United States badly. The president is a role model who sets an example for the present and future generations. If he does scandalous things in his personal affairs, then what