Infidelity and the politician

[Sojourner]

An interesting article from [url="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.benen.html"]Washington Monthly[/url] concerning the indiscretions of politicians, specifically three who could be running for the nation's highest office.

[quote]Of course, there was once a time when reporters believed that the sexual peccadilloes of American leaders were a private matter, and the nation was probably better off for that belief. In the late 1990s, Broder himself argued several times that these kinds of stories don't do voters any favors. But the rules were shifting, thanks largely to the mainstream press and the GOP's relentless pursuit of Bill Clinton. Now the Times piece suggests that we're in for three long years in which reporters will judge Hillary Clinton's character by rumors about her husband. But it may be Republicans who have the most to lose.

Lurking just over the horizon are liabilities for three Republicans who have topped several national, independent polls for the GOP's favorite 2008 nominee: Sen. John McCain (affair, divorce), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (affair, divorce, affair, divorce), and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (divorce, affair, nasty divorce). Together, they form the most maritally challenged crop of presidential hopefuls in American political history.

Until relatively recently, a self-confessed adulterer had never sought the presidency. Certainly, other candidates have been dogged by sex scandals. In the 1828 presidential election, John Quincy Adams questioned whether Andrew Jackson's wife was legitimately divorced from her first husband before she married Old Hickory. Grover Cleveland, who was single, fathered a child out of wedlock, a fact that sparked national headlines during the 1884 election (though he managed to win anyway). There have been presidential candidates who had affairs that the press decided not to write about, like Wendell Wilkie, FDR, and John F. Kennedy. And there have been candidates whose infidelities have been uncovered during the course of a campaign: Gary Hart's indiscretions ultimately derailed his 1988 bid, and in 1992, during the course of his campaign, Bill Clinton was forced to make the euphemistic admission that he "caused pain" in his marriage.

But it wasn't until 2000 that McCain, possibly emboldened by Clinton's survival of his scandals, became the first confessed adulterer to have the nerve to run. Now, just a few years after infidelity was considered a dealbreaker for a presidential candidate, the party that presents itself as the arbiter of virtue may field an unprecedented two-timing trifecta.[/quote]

So, where do you rank a candidate's marital fidelity in his or her electability? What, if anything, does fidelity say about a person's ability to be president?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1009902' date='Jun 21 2006, 01:11 PM']
An interesting article from [url="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.benen.html"]Washington Monthly[/url] concerning the indiscretions of politicians, specifically three who could be running for the nation's highest office.
So, where do you rank a candidate's marital fidelity in his or her electability? What, if anything, does fidelity say about a person's ability to be president?
[/quote]
Do you mean whether a candidate is likely to be elected, or whether I would vote for him?

I'd say that in today's political climate, unfortunately, marital infidelity actually has minimal impact.
While the Republicans tried to use it against him, Clinton's affair in reality did not hurt him politically. If anything, it made him more popular.
The Christian morality, "family-values" people who were genuinely upset by his behavior were for the most part not favorable to Clinton to begin with, and for the hedonistic, sexual-revolution Left, Clinton's low-class antics simply proved him to be "one of them."

While I would put a candidate's stances and actions on issues ahead of his personal misbehavior, I do not believe that a politician's public character is something entirely seperate from his "private" behavior. Marital infidelity, particularly if chronic or unrepentent in nature, can reveal a low character, while marital fidelity reveals a noble character. And I believe character to be important for a public leader. Having a dishonest, sleazy dirtbag as commander-in-chief is a national disgrace.

I'm really not a big fan of any of the three Republican contenders mentioned here. (But I'd sooner die than vote for Hillary).

[Era Might]

I don't think it's so much that a man has sinned that would repulse me, but if he turns repentance into a political charade, I have a big problem with it. I think most of the time, when you are exposed for a sin like adultery, the best thing is to leave the public eye. That doesn't mean you can't be forgiven or are branded with a scarlet letter, but you have to recognize that your ability to lead will never be the same again.

[Era Might]

If someone comes out and says, "I am a sinner, plain and simple", I would respect that. But when the public repentance is basically just a press release, couched in soft language ("made a mistake" instead of "committed a sin", for example), then you're not really doing much to show a genunine change of heart.