There are plenty of things to base our choice on besides who attended a fetish strip club, who posted raunchy photos online, or who had an affair. I'm much more interested in politicians stances on issues, their ideas to solve various problems, etc. The problem is most people would rather gossip about celebrities than they would soberly consider serious things.
That's how you choose to vote - and in fact, most politicians offer similar policies since these are variables they can control. Understandably, many other people choose to vote on other differences between politician
We have to distinguish between politicians, and politicians know this.
I guess that demonstrates that I was wrong to say royalty once had a completely private side to their lives; they have never had fully private lives. Given their intricate relationship with the state, they can't. However, their lives were more private in the past; the gossip was there, only it was slower in spreading and the details less visceral.
Monarchs of the past understood that they were on duty 24/7. Their lives, as you put it, had an "intricate relationship with the state".
Louis XV used to appear every morning at a balcony so that people would know that he was alive and at work. (The equivalent today would be a press conference.)
In the past century, and illustrated in last year's Best Picture Oscar, a Duke of York became a King because a Prince of Wales was not willing to sacrifice his private life.
The point in my OP was that Layton elevated himself to such a status. He was on 24/7.
It's weird that Layton acted as royalty. But then, Layton was known as "Jack" when in fact he was a scion of an established anglo family in Quebec. In this sense, when Layton spoke French, I always cringed. He was like royalty of past who often didn't speak the language of commoners - but ruled them by a sense of duty.
Ultimately, shorn of his public persona, I found Layton to be paternalistic. But what do I know...
Edited by August1991, 31 August 2011 - 01:01 AM.
"In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons." Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 2