Political fools for love—or sex
Mark Sanford is the latest politician confessing to cheating on his wife. You might say it goes with the territory.
Politicians tend to be egotistical and aggressive. They also encounter a great deal of opportunity to stray; as Henry Kissinger said, “power is the great aphrodisiac”—and if power could get women to fall for the likes of Kissinger, he must have been correct.
The list of erring political husbands (yes, it’s usually husbands, although no doubt there are woman in public life who do the same) is long. But usually love’s got nothing to do with it. I wasn’t in their bedrooms to find out for sure, but I think we can safely say that for John Kennedy and Elliot Spitzer and John Edwards and John Ensign (what’s up this with all these “John’s”?) and Bill Clinton (whose bedroom/office we practically were in, thanks to Ken Starr’s report), the aim was to satisfy several lusts at once: conquest, power, excitement, and sex for fun and frolic.
Not so for Governor Sanford, who seems to have been in a star-crossed-lovers situation. This makes him far more sympathetic, and far more rare. So why didn’t he just get divorced and marry his Argentine paramour? Perhaps she didn’t want to leave her country. Perhaps he felt too much guilt about his wife and especially his children (although not enough to stop him from having the affair in the first place). Perhaps he thought it would ruin his political career to divorce and remarry, although paradoxically, keeping the affair secret and acting so oddly and irresponsibly has probably sunk it far more in the end.
People know that politicians often cheat on their wives, and that it’s an equal opportunity offense; both parties indulge. That doesn’t stop the crowing from one side or the other when a prominent member of the opposing party gets caught. Democrats say the indiscretions of culturally and religiously conservative Republicans are much worse than those of Democrats because the former are hypocrites as well as cheaters. But I believe that demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the concept of sin among the religious, who usually understand that high standards are difficult to meet, and human beings will err. Seeking forgiveness—which was a big theme in Sanford’s press conference—is what matters most, and a chance to learn from mistakes and not repeat the offense.
The larger question is whether all of it matters in regard to what politicians are actually elected to do, which is their jobs. To the extent that extramarital sex is a distraction from that, or affords an opportunity for blackmail or harassment of employees, it’s clearly a danger. But many people also view it as a general character issue: the argument is that if a politician will cheat on his wife he’ll cheat us as well.
There’s a certain logic to that, and I’m sure in some cases it’s true. In others it’s not. Cheating or lying to the public is not necessarily linked to cheating or lying to family about personal matters.
For example, although nothing would surprise me, I am almost certain that Barack Obama is a faithful husband. But I also think he is amoral when it comes to politics, lying strategically and misrepresenting his positions and the economic effects of his policies without feeling a qualm of remorse. Although JFK was a notorious womanizer, and although one can certainly disagree with aspects of his presidency, I’ve never seen evidence that he was especially into lying in his official capacity. Nixon was another president who seemed to be the very model of a faithful husband. But despite the rather spectacular opportunities it afforded for double-entendres, his moniker “Tricky Dick” was given him in his political rather than his sexual capacity.
So I throw it open to you. Do you think infidelity disqualifies for high political office? Does it matter if it’s love or just lust? Or if it’s just with one person, as opposed to a pattern of behavior? Does it have to directly affect the politician’s job (as I believe Sanford’s behavior did) to be important?
IMHO, it is a wash. Both parties indulge. The Democrats today seem to get a pass.
The standard picture of JFK as honest and of Nixon as devious is a simplification. JFK wasn’t pure as the driven snow in politics- recall his “missile gap” scam which he continued even when as a candidate the USG briefed him on that material. While Nixon’s reputation as “Tricky Dick”had a strong basis in reality, a lot of that reputation came from Nixon’s obvious discomfort from being an introvert in an extrovert’s game.
A politician should be judged on his conduct in politics.
OTOH you could make the case that the bad judgment that serial philanderers such as Clinton and JFK showed in their “love live” also showed in their political decisions. But then Obama is apparently faithful, and also makes bad decisions.
Scrutinize their politics. OTOH, the life they lead also is a mirror. Global warming Gore is an energy hog in his private life. “Two Americas” John Edwards had a house that would suffice for all the inhabitants of a suburban block.
My rear is an ‘indecent’ part of my anatomy, therefore I keep it covered. Nobody wants to see my rectum should I go running around naked in public. It is indecent and offensive.
Likewise with frowned-upon behavior: it is indecent for public consumption. We expect people to be decently clothed when they go out in public, and likewise we expect people to behave decently when they are in the public eye.
It is unfortunate that Sanford’s private business should be made so public, but since it is, the honorable thing to do is to take his shame and retire out of public view.
Seeing as how the only qualification the public expects its politicians to meet is “getting more money funneled into my pocket without raising my taxes,” I don’t think infidelity is even a blip on most voters’ radar screens. It focuses attention, sure, but whether that’s good or bad depends on how much money the politician has been spreading around.
Yes, I believe infidelity disqualifies one for public office, high or otherwise. I may be naive, but trustworthiness is paramount, in marriage and in public service.
If one would lie in private, one would lie in public.
A couple of hours and only 4 comments. The response is a public yawn. My take is that infidelity is an indicator of character. When politicians are not censured for keeping “cold cash” (local reference) we seem loathe to judge based on character. A good haircut and a smooth public presence seems to be much more important to being elected. Staying elected… don’t get caught in bed with any kiddies and you can get reelected on name recognition. Do you see too much cynicism and frustration in that response? So do I.
Short answer, infidelity matters to me. I’m a single voter. Too bad everyone else has it wrong.
It’s a matter of degree. It’s hard to find anyone who is not a thief or liar. Taking home a pen from the office and keeping it. Unauthorized use of computer time. Telling a panhandler you don’t have spare change. Making an excuse to someone other than the truth for avoiding an activity. Lying to a significant other to avoid a fight or confrontation. Saying the ugly baby is cute. Telling someone you’re fine, when you feel like crap, because you don’t want a discussion.
If one of those don’t get you, I’m sure there are hundreds more to consider.
Carter was known for the lust comment. So, according to that, quite a few are falling short.
Obama amoral? WTF? Other than Andrew Jackson I wouldn’t call any President amoral. Even Nixon – though racist and antisemitic – was not amoral. Amoral is someone who doesn’t care about right or wrong and may display psychopathic behavior.
The policies that Presidents put forth can cause harm to some but may also be liberation for others. This is ALWAYS the case. But they are not amoral. Many said Bush was amoral [and immoral] but even I would not go that far. He merely had policies I disagreed with.
For someone who understands the value of language I think you need to rethink your words and your views here. They are very harsh.
And BTW it seems you too have bought the JFK myth. Trust me, he lied like the rest of them. Read Sy Hersh’s book on JFK.
Matt, I partially agree, but think most people use the term comparatively, not purely. The line from tactful to practical to compromising to unconcerned to completely amoral is perhaps a continuum. “Unscrupulous” might be closer to the mark, but I think “amoral” qualifies because the word is weakening over time.
As to whether it is a disqualifier, I lean toward swiftone’s take. It is a mark of character and an indicator of how much moral courage a person has. It is not the only mark and indicator by any means, but I notice it.
If infidelity disqualified one for high political office we’d have a lot fewer politicians. That’s a winner. I suggest we also require would be politicians to swim across a shark tank and crawl over burning coals. If they are going to collect corrupt perks they might as well earn the privilege and provide a bit of entertainment in the process.
Because Republicans are overly-upright, prissy, preachy religious nutcases, it is a much more important event when a Republican exhibits less-than-perfect moral rectitude. In such a case, it is VAST hypocrisy, and the deed will be featured on front pages as long as interest can be sustained, especially for demands for resignation from office in disgrace.
Since hypocrisy is the worst of all sins, Democrats, who don’t much care about much of anything moral, will ignore such moral turpitude in their own, but demand that any Republican be completely disgraced, more because of the hypocrisy than the deed.
Of course all Democrats who have misbehaved in any way have promptly resigned from whatever office they held.
Not too many months apart, a rep congressman named Crane was caught messing with a female page. He resigned in disgrace and the world saw him no more.
And Gerry Studds got caught messing with a male page, told the reproachful congress to kiss his ass, and got re-elected a number of times.
Studds, it should go without saying, is a dem.
As others have said, dems don’t care.
So I would refine it to say that a pol whose moral failings don’t bother either him or his supporters is far more dangerous to the nation than a pol who, upon being caught, goes away.
If you’ll break one oath, you’ll break any oath or undertaking.
“As others have said, dems don’t care.”
LLLLLOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL!!
This is why Dave Vitter is still in the Senate, Rudy Giuliani was a serious candidate for Republican nominee for President, and Newt Gingrich is still taken seriously as a Republican leader.
Let’s not even talk about Rush Limbaugh and his little trip to the Dominican Republic, a notorious destination for sex tourists with a thriving trade in child prostitutes. He was arrested on his return for possession of viagra that had been prescribed to someone else. Hmm, I wonder what he was doing with viagra in the Dominican Republic? And let’s REALLY not talk about the fact that he was (is?) a drug addict. And yet, Republican party leaders have to bow and scrape before him, lest they get on his bad side.
John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer? Their careers are over. Which party is it again that punishes transgressions like this?
It’s not surprised a trolls The State has endorsed Sanford, Bush jr. twice
Bush and….yes….just one of trolls liars
per wife Jenny Sanford
“His career is not a concern of mine. He’ll have to worry about that,” she told reporters as she drove away from the family’s beach house Thursday afternoon with children in the car. “I’m going to worry about my family and the character of my children. I’m going to take it a day at a time, and right now I am going out on the boat.”
No need to fill the ice cube trays in that home. He probably wishes he only had political opponents to deal with.
There are some red flags in the woman’s statements to the press, nothing is her fault at all. Discussed this today, it is always the mans fault, no matter what. I see this case as different than a few trysts. There must have been something missing in the home life that the other woman provided. She is probably as mean as a snake in private with those kind of public statements.
Matt: It is my opinion that Obama is indeed amoral. He seems to have no real regard for truth; he misrepresents his own previous positions (and the consequences of his present ones) without batting an eye. And then there’s what he did to Alice Palmer right at the beginning of his political career. You’d have to look long and hard to find a colder, more calculating, more ambitiously amoral politician than Barack Obama. I do not retract the word.
Obama is not amoral in his private life, however—that is, towards his family. His amorality is political in nature, and it is fairly profound.
And Sy Hersh’s book on JFK has been thoroughly discredited. Talk about liars, Hersh is the champ! Lies, lies, and more lies
So I throw it open to you. Do you think infidelity disqualifies for high political office?
I can’t trust anyone who cheats on his wife. I’ve forsaken friends over this.
When you are dealing with somone with a monkey on his back, women, drugs, booze, money, you never know when you are talking to the person or the monkey.
Matt:
Yes, I agree with neo. Obama is utterly amoral. We have never seen the like in any previous President (including Jackson). He is after raw, naked, total power and will destroy anything in his way.
Me too on Obama=Amoral, the scary thing is that so few see it for what it is.
Neo, think these are very good and thought provoking questions worth asking. I also agree with your take on Obama as amoral when it comes to policy and politics.
While the federal government goes far, far beyond its innumerated powersin dealing with issues today, I also think the public’s right to know other’s–especially politicians–private lives has grown into a monumental sense of entitlement. Much that crosses our screens is none of our business.
I do think Sanford is very much in love with this Argentine woman, or thinks he is, and his marriage is probably toast. Where all this impinges on our right to know is his being missing-in-action or AWOL, so to speak, as head of South Carolina. I don’t begrudge his leaving the country. I do think his leaving in such a clandestine manner shows very poor judgment and weakness.
I like a man, and a woman, who can cry and also own mistakes, learn from them and move on. His press conference made me a bit uncomfortable and frankly I don’t know what I think about Sanford’s political future. I doubt that he cares that much either in all this turmoil.
My bet is he will end up marrying the Argentine, finish his term and move to BA at least part-time. He may be washed up, but he now may want to be washed up.
I do not believe this indiscretion should cause him necessarily to resign as governor, unless he goes AWAOL again and pulls anymore disappearing acts without prior notice.
The whole thing makes me sad for conservative politics however and can’t be good for the country right now.
JFK better than Nixon?!!!!!
JFK stole the 1960 election. How damn tricky was that?
JFK’s dad bought him a Pulitzer for a book he didn’t write. He lied about writing his book. He lied about his military service (his was the only PT boat rammed by the enemy. He was asleep on duty. The navy started court martial proceedings until the politicians interceded.) He lied about his health. He lied about the missile gap. He lied about the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis.
Nixon’s mistake was thinking that he wouldn’t get hung for doing half of what Kennedy and Johnson did.
I think O’s amorality is pretty clear to a bunch of folks who are satisfied that his amorality is going in the direction they favor.
Problem for that kind of thinking is that everybody, which is to say everybody, is eventually surplus to requirements with guys like O.
Nobody gets to where he’s going.
That people cheat on their spouses is a fact of life. The issue is whether doing so is more of a “sin” for a politician than for mere mortals. Specifically, should politicians be held to the same standard as, e.g. doctors and dentists, who are disqualified from practice if they have an affair with a patient, but not if it’s not one. In other words, did they have a “professional” relationship which they abused with the person with whom they cheated. Bill Clinton & John Edwards, for example, both did, and lied about the affair to the public thereby disqualifying themselves IMO. Sanford appears not to have. The issue then becomes not whether they cheat, but how they face the consequences.
Infidelity doesn’t, or shouldn’t, disqualify a person for high political office. (But it suggests that the person pursues their desires over their sense of right and wrong, and is an indicator that they are not to be trusted. So I wouldn’t vote for them.)
I think that infidelity for love rather than lust is more sympathetic. But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s infidelity, and thus represents either poor judgement or untrustworthiness or both, and thus suggests the person is unfit for high office. (Should be rejected by voters, that is; not should be disqualified.)
What confirms and magnifies the result is the outcome. If the infidelitous politician makes amends, one may forgive (but not forget). If on the other hand, the pattern repeats, the judgement is even more clear: both bad judgement and untrustworthiness. Such people should be rejected by voters.
In Sanford’s case, his motivation may be sympathetic, but his behaviour is unforgiveable. Abandoning his post is akin to abandoning your children for the weekend to go on holiday. It is a breach of the trust vouchsafed him by voters.
However, even a politician who is careful to avoid their affairs affecting their work has poor judgement. Infidelity is a political liability, which reduces one’s ability to do one’s job due to criticism by the public, the media, and political opponents. It is thus a betrayal of one’s allies, one’s political platform and the voters who trusted you to represent their interests.
Politicians live in the public eye. Indefensible behaviour is exactly that – indefensible.
1st time poster here, I believe. Hi, everyone.
Remember the old joke where the woman is asked if she will have sex for a million dollars and then is offended at being called a whore? “We have established what you are, the only debate is price.” (I know the quote is off, work with me here!)
A politician that cheats on their spouse has already established that they will take the chance on destroying the lives of the people closest to them for the price of sex. The only that that isn’t known is how much or which temptation is the price for possibly destroying the lives of people that they don’t care for nearly as deeply (the voters). Common sense would have one think that the price would be much less.
Come on people! This is a no brainer! What have we come to that this even needs to be debated?
I don’t care how much they SEEM to separate their public and private lives, as Gray might say, “Are you talking to the honest man or the lying monkey?” I say that if you have to separate their public and private lives in order to award them moral merits, you enjoy delusion.