Hacker News Reader

Comment by randlet | Hacker News Reader

The "rules for thee but not for me" on display by elected officials is maddening. It's certainly not unique to the US. Here in Canada the mayor of Windsor recently had "an unfortunate accident" (ate at a restaurant with a group of people hours after calling for zero tolerance) [1]. Earlier in the pandemic the premier of Ontario Doug Ford drove to his cottage after asking everyone else to stay away from theirs. There's never any consequences and leaves people (me at least) increasingly frustrated, angry, and feeling a complete lack of faith in our politicians.

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windsor-mayor-dining-... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ford-cottage-covid-19...

View on HN

> There's never any consequences and leaves people (me at least) increasingly frustrated, angry, and feeling a complete lack of faith in our politicians.

And this why I consider displays of hypocrisy like these to be so dangerous. In order to function well, a government needs faith in its legitimacy, and a trust that it is looking out for the people's interests. And if that trust is lost, people check out and stop engaging with the government in good faith. And that is what creates opportunity for demagogues to rise and human rights to get trampled.

Exemplarity is a joke whose extent is only proportional to how much you look at these guys to know what to in your life.

Why would you care of anyone if you take care your own life into your hands.

Everyone is human. Do what you what you want to do.

It's entirely predictably that some politicians would behave in this fashion.

What shocks me is that that is your reaction; not that this indicates the rules are themselves ludicrous.

You're shocked I expect politicians to enact policies in good faith and then abide by them themselves?

edit: I'm no longer surprised they act this way, but it still angers me greatly.

I think OP’s point is that the governor’s hypocrisy is evidence that the sensible public health policy is actually wrong, rather than evidence that the governor simply sees himself as above the rules. Which one is more likely?

I'm not sure if you're referring to me as OP or easytiger but my point is I have the (completely reasonable!) expectation that elected officials will act with integrity with regards to the policies they enact.

I was referring to easytiger. That’s the tragedy of this: People will look at this and conclude that the rules are ridiculous, rather than conclude that the governor is simply an asshole. And this conclusion will cost lives unnecessarily. (R) political leaders are already amplifying this conclusion, to the detriment of public health. Thanks, Newsom.

Thanks for your rewording. Yes that was my intent.

I do also however do not quite agree with your assertion of "costing lives", but that is another discussion.

Thanks for clarifying. I agree with your assessment.

If these politicians had any compunction, they would repeal the restrictions which experience had taught them were intolerable.

I'm shocked that people don't apply the basic principles of human nature. The rules are ridiculous. Some people will see that. Politicians are implementing policy because that's what they need to be seen to be doing, not because they honestly believe it should apply universally. Ergo some politicians will be found in a state of hypocrisy.

The man responsible for much of the policy in the west, a UK advisor l, was caught breaching the rules to have sex with a married woman.

Please note I did not include a judgement on whether the rules are justified or not. Whether or not they are justified, if an elected official enacts a rule they expect others to follow, you can be damn sure I expect them to have the integrity to follow it themselves.

> if an elected official enacts a rule they expect others to follow, you can be damn sure I expect them to have the integrity to follow it themselves.

That isn't a rational position. Someone's office (in modern terms more a "job" than historically was the case) is irrelevant to their behaviour, as with any and all people.

I understand this response, because the politicians, at least in some cases, are just showing that some rules are really very difficult to obey constantly. And that deserves consideration.

Of course, it's super painful when you can't go to a funeral and they person that brought you this rule is a at a party the same day. But keeping super strict 1.5 m is just impossible some times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com