Thursday, April 08, 2010

Unfair Judgement Against Tiger Woods

On December 11, 2009, Woods announced he would take an indefinite leave from professional golf to focus on his marriage after he admitted infidelity. His multiple infidelities were revealed by over a dozen women, through many worldwide media sources.Woods returned to competition for the 2010 Masters on April 8, 2010, after a break lasting 20 weeks (Taken from Wikipedia)

By the time the media had revealed the number of infidelities Tiger Woods have had, the world (or more likely the U.S.) had already started its backlash against the sportsman's principles. The key argument to judge him so harshly was that Tiger Woods is a leading figure not only in golf but in sports in general. The U.S. population wanted Tiger to behave in a way that could set a good example to other people in and out of his field.

The basic conclusion with this reaction is that U.s. Americans believe that their leaders should set a good example for the entire population. This is the same principle that politicians in the U.S. are governed by. If a leader behaves badly or incorrectly, then his/her followers (e.g. the population) would required that leader to surrender its current leadership position and ask for forgiveness. This type of event has happened repeatedly over and over in U.S. history.

The problem arises when this basic argument is taken to the next level. Should the U.S. as the leader (or one of the leaders) of the world be held to the same standards and principles governing its population? Should the U.S. ask for forgiveness when behaving improperly? Should the U.S. government ask its population (and the world) for forgiveness for the mistakes made in the past?

Given that the U.S. government is just an entity representing the country's citizens, the U.S. citizens should be responsible for the U.S. government's actions. Why haven't the U.S. Americans held their government to the same standards they held their leaders?? Is it because U.S. Americans don't view their country as a moral leader in the world? Or is it just because a country should not be regulated by the same principles its population is?

My most logical explanation is that there is a voice in the U.S. that has asked for this type of behavior from its government but it hasn't been strong enough. So basically there are not enough people that care about it to make it a relevant point.

If this is the case, why do we still have this principle for each individual if the majority of the population doesn't care.

Maybe it is just about media coverage. Those leaders (being Tiger Wood or any politician) are held to a different standard not because they are leaders in their field but because they are on the eye of the media. If the media could benefit with judging the U.S. government for its mistake made against the world in the same way they benefit from the infidelities of Tiger Woods, then we could see the U.S. government be held to a different standard as the leader of the world.