I don't want to get into religion here, or ancient philosophers. But wherever they got it, the founders of this country understood the difference between right and wrong, and generally tried to stay on the side of right. I don't think Christianity had much to do with it, as many of the founding fathers were Deists, but our country was founded by those who generally knew the difference between right and wrong. Many in our country don't even seem to know any more. To choose a generally non-political example, I'll pick Bill Gates.
Microsoft chose some very unethical positions. I know, business is a rough world, but ethics still belongs. So when that company chose unethical positions which bundled their software to eliminate competition, then strongarmed their customers to choose only their product, they crossed some ethical lines. While the courts may fumble their way along trying to determine the limits of the law, and Microsoft builds products which please the government, I will, because of my ethical beliefs, use Linux, or anything else which doesn't support an unethical company. Whether I use something better or worse is irrelevant, at least I won't support an unethical company. Your mileage may vary regarding my example, and I don't want to debate that. I am trying to say that if the ethics of another offend you, you should take appropriate action.
So what is ethics in politics? And what, to me, is the bottom line for what I will never support? My understanding is that we vote for representatives who represent our position, either directly, or, when we are obviously too stupid to know what we need, indirectly. A good example is economic policy. Since few people really understand the issues, a representative can and should vote in such a way as to accomplish the results his constituents want, rather than take a poll. But there is no situation where anyone elected to serve his constituents should instead decide to vote with his gang, or any gang. One of the most unethical things any politician could do is to vote with a gang. I feel that for a politician, to vote with either the R or D gang is worse than keeping an intern under the desk of the oval office or hiring some friends to burglarize the Watergate. I also won't support an unlimited amount of lying, cheating, violating the oath of office, etc. etc. etc. But I feel all those ethical violations pale compared to the ethical crime of being a gang member and voting with the gang. While my general philosophies are libertarian, and I feel that some ethical people can be found in that group, I will personally "bail out" if Libertarians ever becomes a gang voting in lockstep.
Note that the Constitution of the United States doesn't even mention gangs (or parties), they are totally a construct of their members. As are the voting laws now, where only gangs can be on a ballot. So our only choice for ethical government is to vote for individuals who have to claim a relationship with some gang, but will not be bound by its groupthink. Note also that one member of the House of Representatives displays enough ethics to not just vote with his gang. Representative Ron Paul of Texas. An exception to every rule.
Standard Disclaimer:
Nothing in this blog entry for or against any R or D implies in any way that any other R or D would be an improvement. Anyone who votes for any R or D votes for slavery