Setting a good example and popularity?

Subject: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 06:19 AM

I have posted a quotation by Mark Twain, to the forum a couple of times. It is to the effect that, sitting a good example in anything, is not going to make you popular and could make you very unpopular with some. It does appear to be very true. Why is this?

In music, an example comes to mind of John Denver. Whose 'squeaky clean' lifestyle and image, got up a lot of noses. He became a lot better thought here of when reports of his drink driving exploits were published.

In politics, look no further than Bill Clinton. An exposed marriage cheat and probably the most blatant discovered liar in political history, yet his popularity through it all and indeed his popularity now is astonishing?

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 06:20 AM

Or is it?

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 06:46 AM

Maybe deflated the 'good image' of famous people makes them popular with the public because they become real people with real problems who have been able to achieve remarkable accomplishments.

Little Neo

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Allan C.
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 08:05 AM

I presume you are talking about Mark Twain's having said, "Man will do many things to get himself loved, he will do all things to get himself envied. Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example."

But he appears to have more or less contradicted himself by saying, "To be good is noble, but to show others how to be good is nobler, and no trouble."

I once heard the American public's collective memory compared to that of a goldfish. Each time the goldfish swims around the tank, the little plastic treasure chest is brand new to it.

Most good politicians learned long ago that we are quickly distracted from negative publicity.

On the other hand,I don't know if I agree that Denver's popularity changed one way or another after his foibles became public knowledge. Pat Boone made a feeble (perhaps even pathetic) attempt recently to portray a "bad boy" image. It didn't do anything at all for his popularity or current lack thereof.

One thing is certain. People are fickle with regard to their feelings about public figures. As it was said in the song, "New Kid In Town":

"They will never forget you till somebody new comes along."

Gee, I really rambled here. I'm sure my point is in there somewhere. Guess I'd better have that second cuppa coffee...

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: LR Mole
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 08:32 AM

I just had my nose in Twain,getting ready for class. Can't find your quote, but how about these:"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." "Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed." and:" One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives." Mark is my favorite: I've got a picture of his Martin 2 1/2 - 17 on my wall.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 08:54 AM

Allan, I was wondering.......Does your property in West Virginia border on Bob Denver's marijuana patch? Just curious...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Allan C.
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 09:02 AM

I must have been sleepwalking when I posted. And no, 'Spaw, it is well over a mile from here. But it is of no use to me. I can't pass the physical for that kind of activity anymore. It makes me pass out. (Scares the hell outta those around me.) So now I go around setting good examples instead ;-)

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 09:23 AM

It's funny old world, innit?

One thing we've certainly learned over the last few years is what happens to people who attempt to increase their popularity by trying to decrease someone else's. Newt Gingrich (sp?) would be a good example of this.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 09:30 AM

His Holiness the Dalai Lama sets a good example and is popular, too.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: kendall
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 09:32 AM

I dont think I agree that Clinton was the most blatant liar. Remember the "actor" on tv when he denied the Iran-Contre thing? and the Arms for hostages? He lied through his teeth, but, there were those who forgave him because he "Thought he was doing the right thing!" People are crazy..he gets an airport named after him, and Clinton gets villified.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: GUEST,Matt
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 09:42 AM

Fact is, I'd rather have Bill instead of Feeb & Dweeb.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 10:18 AM

I think that "Setting an example" is the key phrase. We seem to be suspicious of people who are publicly and conspicuously virtuous. We suspect their motivation and assume some level of hypocrisy is involved. We are probably suspicious because after some life experience we know, first hand, how hard it often is to do the right thing.

On the other hand, if someone is conspicuously NOT virtuous, you certainly cannot accuse them of hiding anything. If they are blatant enough about it, it is hard not to grudgingly admire their lack of hypocrisy.

On the other hand, it is easy to admire people who make a sincere attempt to hide their virtue because it is clearly not a PR thing.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 10:35 AM

We don't trust people who appear to be perfect, and it seems to be an unforgivable fault to not ever need forgiveness.

I think the best examples are those people who try their best to be good, and are honest with themselves and others when they make mistakes.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 01:56 PM

Mark Twain Quotes Is where I found it.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 01:59 PM

"There is nothing so annoying as a good example!!"

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 16 Nov 00 - 02:22 PM

We have become cynical about anyone who seems to be above the normal range of human frailty. We prefer for people to be like us - flawed, but trying to do better. Add to that the prevalent (but suspect) opinion that only suckers play by the rules and you can see a lot of cachet in being (or playing) a "bad boy/girl"

Personally, I think that you should try to act as if everyone is watching all the time. It's when you begin to believe that everyone actually is - or should be - that a person becomes insufferable. People tend to miss the subtle differences between people who are naturally good examples and people who set themselves up to be an example.

I hope some of that is clear. I dunno.
later. . .

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: John P
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 08:34 AM

I know this is off topic for this thread, but I am amazed that The Shambles thinks Clinton is the biggest exposed liar in political history. I think the guy is a terrible husband, but I also don't think that is any of my business -- or any else's except his and his wife's. The fact that they are still married probably means that they found a way to deal with his loose dick a long time before he became famous. But that's between the two of them. So, like a lot of the men in this world, he had inappropriate sex and lied about it. Why did that become political history? Could it be that his enemies made it so? I find that a LOT more offensive than Clinton's inability to keep his pants zipped up.

I don't trust Clinton, but then I don't trust any politician -- they don't get into high office without accepting lots of bribes -- but I think he has done a better job than most at being president. The biggest exposed liar in history? You need to read some history books, or cool down the hyperbole.

John

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 10:27 AM

Thanks for demonstrating the fact that Clinton has such support. It really proves my point.

Whether he is the "biggest" liar is a matter of opinion, of course. That he is a liar, and an exposed one is now a matter of TV history. You can now and repeatedly see him look you, history and me in the eye and lie.

What you are getting upset about is a question of degree of lying, what is was about and that others may have been worse. I stand by my statement and for the above reason.

That does not prevent me from agreeing with just about everything else in your post.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: mg
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 11:14 AM

couldn't people tell by looking at him when he was first running? I could, and don't believe I have ever had this positive feeling about other politicians...I thpought there is no way the country would elect such a blatant liar..I thought.surely everyone can see it. mg

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Troll
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 11:45 AM

Bill Clinton is, without a doubt, one of the most brilliant politicians of the 20th Century. But he has the fatal flaw that Nixon had: The belief that with the power of position came immunity.
Hubris.
If, when the Lewinsky affair came out he had said,"Yes, I did it. It is between me and my wife and we will deal with it privately.", it would have been over. When he tried to hide it was where he screwed up.
What I cannot understand is how all these womens groups can support him considering the way he has used women in the past.
That he is popular is no mystery. The economy has been good and he has gotten the credit for it even though the recovery had started 2 years before he was first elected.
He is popular but he's a lousy example of how to run your life.
John, had he not lied under oath, indeed, had he come clean in the first place, none of the problems that faced him-and still face him- would have happened. To blame it all on his political enemies is a blindly loyal statement to say the least.

troll

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Jim Krause
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 12:43 PM

Shambles, actually John Denver went down a couple of notches in my estimation when I found out about his DUI and also when he dumped Annie, who I thought was kind of a babe, anyways. I was left with the impression that he lied when he wrote Annie's Song and Annie's Other Song

I hold out for setting a good example, and basically living an ethical lifestyle, in essence, do no harm at the very least. At the very most, one should live by one's word of honor, and accept the consequences, both good and bad. If the bad means you lose some friends, well, they weren't worth calling friend anyhow. If living an honest, ethical and honorable life sticks in some folks' nose, they can go bugger off. Soddy

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Steve Latimer
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 01:01 PM

Someone told me that a key to parenting is realizing that you are going to be an example regardless, it's up to us to choose which kind.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: John P
Date: 17 Nov 00 - 11:22 PM

Hmm . . . I don't support Clinton. I think he has set a bad example and I think he is a lying opportunist. I think he is a living example of the old saying about how power corrupts. What I said is that he has been a pretty good president. I think he's been a much better president than either Reagan or Bush, mostly because he's a lot smarter than either of them, and all politicians are, to some extent, lying opportunists. I agree that had he owned up to his indecencies he would not have had the problems he's had. I also think the only reason he was in a trial where his sexual urges were an issue is because his enemies decided to use that tact to try to bring him down. I think the only reason it became as big a deal as it did was because his enemies did everything they could to make it a big deal. This doesn't mean I am blindly supporting him. But I do think the Republicans who staged the whole Lewinski / impeachment thing are more slimy than Clinton, and just as hypocritical.

John

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 07:07 AM

Viewed from here, post the Nixon events, the seeds of the present hiatus were sown when lots of money was spent by wealthy Republicans trying to usurp the democratically elected Prsident. More damage was done, when the dirt was found, by The Democratic Party supporting the very actions (the office lying to the people), that was Nixon' crime.

Both side of this were equally hypocritical.

A lot of voters, I think still agree with you that, the example set by Clinton, was one of a good President. A lot don't. The result of this is that it has now been accepted, in US politics, that the truth is what you can get away with or can afford to dig up or afford to hide.

It has made you all, the voters of the US appear like hypocrites to the rest of the world and it just gets worse daily.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 07:15 AM

I think also that Mary has a point. If the Democrats had said, we have selected a lying serial fornicator but we think that despite that he will be a good President. If the people had then elected him, they would have been little problem.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: mkebenn
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 07:32 AM

"Lying serial fornicator" LOL oh my what a way to start my day. However, to equate Clinton's penial problems with Nixon's subversion of democracy is ludicrous.imho Mike Bennett

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 07:49 AM

Both side of this were equally hypocritical.

And it appears to me, to be increasingly irreconcilable?

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: John P
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 01:08 PM

Shambles said: "It has made you all, the voters of the US appear like hypocrites to the rest of the world and it just gets worse daily."

Huh? That is like saying that everyone in the UK was responsible for Margaret Thatcher, or that all Serbs supported Milosovec. Do you really think you can make assumptions about all the people in any country? Do you really think most of us have any say about how our country is run? Do you feel like you have a lot of say about how your country is run?

John

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 03:39 PM

Shambles, I've just polled all Americans. We do not appreciate your blanket statements.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 07:16 PM

I think when Americans try to tell people in other countries what their thought processes are, or why they do the things they do, we come off looking pretty foolish.

When people in other countries do the same to us, they look pretty foolish, too.

Carol

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 07:26 PM

It is exactly why it is so important that the US get it right. This is only my view from here. You may not like it but I am entitled to it.

You have to accept that the world is watching also and it would seem that is not welcome either?

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Nov 00 - 09:34 PM

From all of the reports I read during the whole Republican seige on Clinton, the rest of the world laughed and shook their heads at the idiocy of it all.

His is probably the most brilliant mind in politics of the 20th century and history will bear that out. Behind every brilliant mind there stands an idiot flaw, if you will, which in some way makes them a social outcast.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 06:16 AM

The first post of this thread Third world elections, gives a good idea of how the world may see the present situation.

The important thing is way that the US seems to see and judge the leaders of other countries, in such black and white terms but has an entirely different view to its own.

The TV clip of Clinton lying to the world will be his lasting legacy. I think It will be shown constantly and be used to demonstrate the 'body language' whlist lying, for phsychology students for ever more.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 06:32 AM

"From all of the reports I read during the whole Republican seige on Clinton, the rest of the world laughed and shook their heads at the idiocy of it all."

I think that is most probably true. I think it changed however at the point when he made that statemente to the world. At that point he lied and was discovered to have lied, to the people. It was excactly the same 'crime', that the world was told, as Nixon's.

The world I feel, and probably most Republicans, unlike the rest of the US, has difficulty in seeing those two 'crimes' as different.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 07:17 AM

Well, there is certainly more than one way to view these issues, as has been shown by the heated debate even just amonge the Americans in this forum.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion. My opinion is that I agree with kat/katlaughing.

I would add that most of that laughing being done by the rest of the world that I was aware of during the Clinton/Lewinski thing, was being aimed at the Republicans, rather than at Clinton.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: John P
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 08:40 AM

It is exactly why it is so important that the US get it right. . . . . You have to accept that the world is watching also and it would seem that is not welcome either?

The Shambles, I think the point that some of us have been trying to make is this: who do you think the US is? Am I the US? Is Carol, or Ebbie? If the country as whole gets it wrong, does that mean that I got it wrong? You are dealing with individuals here, not with The US.

You started this thread by being amazed that people can set a bad example and still be liked. Do you think you are setting a good example by writing about the individuals of this country as if we were a monoculture, as if we all act and believe the same way? How is that different than any other form of bigotry?

And speaking of getting it right, are you talking about our current electoral foibles? What's your problem? Most of us are having more fun with it than we've had with anything for a long time, we're not hurting each other, and we'll have a president sometime soon.

As for the rest of the world watching, of course they are, and welcome. Why would that bother me? I only get bothered if an individual I am having a conversation says to me, "Oh you bloody Americans, you're all alike." Especially from someone who also said, The important thing is way that the US seems to see and judge the leaders of other countries, in such black and white terms but has an entirely different view to its own. You really shouldn't complain about Americans viewing the rest of the world with blinders on, and then view Americans in the same way yourself. We're all just people; like people elsewhere in the world, we find others that agree with us about some things, but not about other things. There are some people with whom we can't agree about much of anything, but we still manage to get through the day with them somehow. We are not The US. We are people.

John

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 09:48 AM

John why do you insist on taking any of my comments here so personally? Is every fault of the US also yours? Have I said that? Have I also said 'oh you bloody Americans you are all the same? Please focus on the issue, what has been said and not your own insecurities.

As for you having fun, I do not see it as that. The situation is probably more serious than you think.

The Mudcat is not confined to the US and the rest of the contributors are putting up with, and conributing to a number of threads on the subject of the US election. Are those contributions only welcome when those views agree with yours? Or when than can be seen as either from a Democratic or a Republican supporter? Or as not critical of either?

I am not a supporter of either of the two parties. That leaves me free to find fault with both. That should make mine and other views from the watching world, at least less suspect? If not a little refeshing too?

There are probably many more in the US who are not either. The divisions have become very apparent to me in the last few weeks and anyone who expresses a view here appears to be viewed immediately a supporter of the other side. These division usually die down for four years or so. I do not see that they will this time.

I am not a part of that. I do not find fault with one Party, I see all who are party to this re-writing of truth and history, acording to party-lines equally wrong.

The office of President has been seriously devalued by this process and continues to be so. Whilst not being without a humourous element, it is not a laughing matter.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: John P
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 10:13 AM

Shambles, I hear that you don't really think that all Americans are alike. The reason I focused on that is because you made a comment that sounded as if you thought that. Carol, Ebbie, and myself all called you on it and told you that we didn't appreciate being treated in that way. Your response was to restate your original comment in very similar terms. What was I supposed to think? But yes, let's leave that all behind. I believe that I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Yes, the views from the rest of the world are refreshing, are not suspect, and all are welcome, even those I don't agree with. Have I said anything that makes you think otherwise? Perhaps we need to talk about you responding out of your own insecurites? In fact, the only comment I made on the subject was "As for the rest of the world watching, of course they are, and welcome. Why would that bother me?"

I don't think the situation is dangerous. We will elect a president, and probably the vote count will be as accurate as we can get it, even if the whole thing ends up getting decided by the courts. In the meantime, we have a sitting president. Where is the danger? We are using our system, we are not fighting in the streets, there are not factions taking control of parts of the nuclear armament. If you ignore the hyperbole coming out of the Gore and Bush campaigns, everything is really pretty calm. I see this as a strengthening exercise for the office of the President -- we will work a couple of more bugs out of the system while still peaceably transferring power to a new president.

John

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 11:46 AM

Is this not a lot of 'humbug' John? In the present climate, I feel that if I had restricted my criticism to those that had supported and 'dug up the dirt' on Clinton's exploits, thus criticising roughly only half of the US, that would have been OK and passed without comment. At least from you. May have received some from Republican supporters though?

It appears to be alright to criticise half of America but not all of it?

That I also had criticism for those that supported Clinton's actions, and thus both sides, was what causes you to accuse me of lumping all Americans together for criticism?………. Humbug indeed.

Good trick though. For then both US Republican and Democratic supporters can unite against a common enemy.

Please read what I actually have said, rather than what I appear to have said or what I am accused of saying.

The most danerous aspect of it is that you do not see the present danger. The danger is in the example set. Do you really think that who ever wins this election will be able to unite the nation?

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 02:22 PM

BS, Shambles, IMHO.

John P, Bravo!

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 04:15 PM

I seem to be both managing to set a bad example and be unpopular. *Smiles*

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 04:44 PM

Shambles, hang in there. You have as much right to express your opinion as they do theirs.

Too bad threads like this usually end up with somebody attacking somebody else.

Anybody who believes Clinton has set a good example or has been an exceptionally good president is not, in my opinion, seeing things very clearly.

DougR

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Greyeyes
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 04:49 PM

"His [Clinton's] is probably the most brilliant mind in politics of the 20th century and history will bear that out." I'll get back to you in 30 years and ask you to justify that.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 05:00 PM

"and probably the vote count will be as accurate as we can get it" - not if the Bushy lot get their way.

I think most people assume that most politicians lie through their teeth much of the time. Clinton caught it for the lies about his Oval Office aberrations, but not about akll the lies he told about domestic and foreigh piolicies and activities. I don't specify what the lies were, because I'm not close enough to know about them. But I assume they were there, and I think that is a pretty reasonable assumption.

Nixon got hell for lying about a politically motivated break-in, but got clean away with it for lying about murdering thousands of people in an illegal bombing campaign in Cambodia, just for a start.

I think truthfullness ,especially about personal matters, is pretty low in the wish list you might have if you were picking a politician to trust.This year is ten years since they dumped Margaret Thatcher. I still wake up sometimes and find myself sighing with relief she's gone. In some ways she was probably as honest as politicians get, which is to say that when she told a lie most of the time she believed it was true, partly because she was saying it herself and she believed in herself. Which is a kind of madness, as Chesterton once pointed out.

I'd put humility a lot higher, both in politicians and on people generally. And that's something you can't boast about, by definition.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Greyeyes
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 05:34 PM

When Thatcher fell the words "the wicked witch of the west is dead" sprang into my mind. But I'm not sure lies or deceit were ever consciously part of her make-up. Years later she was still puzzled at Geoffrey Howe's character assassination of her in the Commons, and oblivious to how badly she had treated him, despite all the evidence.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: MK
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 05:48 PM

There was a running joke in Canada back in the early 90s, when it was certain that then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney if remaining at the helm of the Conservative Party, would lead the party to complete decimation, which they were. The sacraficial lamb chosen to replace Mulroney was Kim Campbell. During the campaign there were numerous articles written about "Who is Kim Campbell?" The best answer I ever heard was "Oh, she's the female version of Margaret Thatcher."

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Greyeyes
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 05:53 PM

Almost a contradiction in terms.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 07:22 PM

I don't always agree with your views and conclusions, the Shambles, but you (usually) give me something to think about. If only to let me know what the U.K. citizenry think! (Don't you agree that speaking for a whole country- not to mention the whole world- is an exercise in futility?)

With a rueful smile in return.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 07:33 PM

Well, Greyeyes, I sincerely hope I'm around to take that call. I'll be 100 years old, so your call will be most welcome.

DougR

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 07:36 PM

Yes.

"This is only my view from here". When talking of the world I did use the word, may.

How do you think the world may see it?

Who was it said? "We do not appreciate your blanket statements"....... Bill Clinton? *Smiles*

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: Greyeyes
Date: 19 Nov 00 - 07:44 PM

DougR, I'll be 67, we'll have a laugh & a yarn if nothing else, if we're both still around.

Subject: RE: Setting a good example and popularity?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Nov 00 - 12:13 AM

Sounds good, Greyeyes!

DougR