Is a businessman giving sanction by continuing to employ progressives when it's relatively easy to replace them?
We've seen how Hank gives sanction by supporting his family. What about employees who votes for a government that's out to destroy him?
I think your question and your explanation are actually asking different things. Should one employ progressives at all? Yes, if they are the best individuals you can find which are qualified for the job. It is in a company's best interested to be run by the most qualified people possible, and it would be an unusual situation (albeit possible) that an individual's political opinions would matter more than being well qualified.
The second issue is whether things constitutes "sanction". I don't think this is the case. You sanction an idea by failing to denounce it when your silence can be taken as agreement. In the vast majority of cases, there is no question of "sanction" when an employer hires an employee. For most jobs, no one assumes that the employer agrees with (or even knows) the political or philosophical positions of their employees.
However, what I think what you might really be asking is: "When there's little difference between candidates, shouldn't I hire those with whose political options I agree?" For this, I don't think there are many contexts in which this would be worth the trouble. In order to know a person's political opinions, you'd have to interview them (at a minimum), and potentially ask questions which will potentially alienate some qualified candidates. This will add time to your hiring process (which can no-doubt be spent more productively), and might drive away a genuinely better candidate. Finally, not hiring someone because of their political views is unlikely to either change their mind or diminish their impact on the political system.
answered Feb 04 '13 at 01:13
Andrew Miner ♦