To the editor: A lot has been manufactured from Graham Platner’s previous errors, a lot of which he has publicly acknowledged (“Graham Platner to hold Maine rally with Rep. Ro Khanna as scandals shake up campaign,” June 5). Voters are entitled to weigh these admissions rigorously. However the query earlier than Maine is bigger than whether or not a candidate has flaws. Each candidate does.
The deeper query is how we decide character in public life.
For years, Republican Sen. Susan Collins has cultivated a repute as an unbiased voice prepared to face as much as her personal occasion when precept calls for it. But repeatedly, she has expressed concern about actions, insurance policies and habits she claimed to search out troubling, solely to cave when her vote mattered most. Her defenders name this pragmatism. Her critics name it one thing else: the widening hole between phrases and deeds.
I don’t excuse Platner’s errors. However there’s a clear ethical distinction between an individual who overtly acknowledges wrongdoing and accepts accountability for it, and a pacesetter who repeatedly acknowledges conduct she says is fallacious but continues to allow it.
In politics, hypocrisy might be extra harmful than imperfection. A democracy is broken not solely by those that overtly problem its norms. It is usually weakened when leaders acknowledge hazard, communicate eloquently about it after which repeatedly select to not act.
The tragic flaw just isn’t blindness. The tragic flaw is seeing clearly and nonetheless failing to do what conscience requires.
That’s the usual by which I decide this race.
Stephen Macht, Beverly Hills
