With Herman Cain’s announcement that he was suspending his presidential campaign because of the charges of sexual harassment and of a 13-year-long affair, issues are raised that the country would do well to think through.
The two most obvious are whether we should care about a politician’s sexual life, and how much the press should report about these matters.
But there is a larger issue that needs to be addressed first: What does adultery tell us about a person?
For many Americans, the answer is, “Pretty much all we need to know.” This certainly seems to be the case with regard to presidential candidates. The view is expressed this way: “If he can’t keep his vows to his wife, how can we trust him to keep his vows to his country?”
Advertisement
I am a religious conservative, but I know this statement has no basis in fact. It sounds persuasive, but it is a non-sequitur. We have no reason to believe that men who have committed adultery are less likely to be great leaders, or that men who have always been faithful are more likely to be great leaders. To religious readers, I point to God Himself, who apparently thought that King David deserved to remain king, and even have the Messiah descend from him, despite a particularly ugly form of covering up his adultery (sending Bathsheba’s husband into battle where he would assuredly be killed).
And while we are on the subject of leadership, another question for religious and/or conservative readers who believe that a man who sexually betrays his wife is likely to betray his country: Which would you prefer for president — a pro-life conservative who had had an affair, or a pro-choice man of the Left who had always been faithful to his wife?
• Jimmy Carter, to the best of our knowledge, has been faithful to his wife throughout their long marriage. That is certainly commendable. Did it make him in any way a better president? Has it given moral acuity to the man who wrote a book equating democratic Israel with apartheid South Africa?
• The American who may have singlehandedly prevented inter-racial war in America, Martin Luther King Jr., committed adultery on a number of occasions.
• Would John F. Kennedy, a serial adulterer while in the White House, have been any different a president were he faithful?
Just knowing that a man or a woman has had extramarital sex may tell us nothing about the person that is relevant to his or her public life. I have always wanted to know: Why is sexual sin in general, and adultery in particular, the one sin that many religious people regard as defining a person, as well as a sin that is almost unforgiveable?
Nothing here is in any way meant to be a defense of adultery. As a religious Jew, I believe it violates one of the Ten Commandments. As a married person, I know how much it would hurt my wife if I did it, and how much it would hurt me if my wife had an affair.
But marriage is too complex an arena to draw any immediate conclusions about a person. Are we to label a man who takes loving care a wife with Alzheimer’s and who has a discreet affair no more than an adulterer who merits disdain and mistrust? Is a woman who stays in an emotionally abusive marriage for the sake of her children someone with little integrity because she sought to be held in another man’s loving arms? The questions and nuances are innumerable.
And what is adultery? Women have called my radio show to tell me that a man who gets a lap dance has committed adultery. Others go further — saying that merely attending a strip show, or looking at Playboy, is adultery. To my mind this is emotion, not reason, morality, or religion. Yes, many Christians cite Jesus as saying that a man who lusts after a woman other than his wife has committed adultery with his heart. But Jesus made it clear that this is adultery with the heart. Jesus, a practicing and knowledgeable Jewish rabbi, would never equate actual adultery with adultery with one’s heart. And if someone believes the two are morally identical, why not start asking candidates if they have ever lusted for any woman other than their wife?
In choosing a president of the United States, adultery would greatly matter to me if it were engaged in indiscreetly. I don’t trust the integrity or conscience of a man or woman who publicly humiliates his or her spouse.
Beyond that, I do not want to know anything about the sexual life of any candidate. Media reporting or questioning about candidates’ sexual lives constitutes a form of hypocrisy so deep that the English language does not have a word for it. Media people report on the sexual lives of candidates — for virtually any public office — on the grounds that since these politicians have great power, the public needs to know all about them. Yet, they offer no insight into their own sexual lives, even though some in the news media are far more powerful than almost any politician except the president of the United States. If we cannot trust a candidate who committed adultery, then why can we trust a news reporter or editor who has committed adultery?
The only thing this preoccupation with candidates’ sexual lives has achieved is to ensure that some of the best, brightest, finest, and most honest men in America never run for office.
— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. He may be contacted through his website, dennisprager.com.
Mr. Prager raises some interesting points, but I'm not persuaded. I would not hire someone to work for me at my company who had a history of serial adultery, for the same reason I would not hire someone who had a history of stealing from his or her employer. Both patterns of behavior reveal a lack of integrity, and both patterns of behavior have ramifications in the workplace. There are plenty of others with admirable skills and abilities who have never committed adultery or stolen from their employers. I'll hire them.
I would ask Mr. Prager: Are there any sins or misdeeds that would disqualify someone from consideration for the office of the President, or do leadership capabilities always outweigh such considerations? If JFK's accomplishments in the public sphere diminish his adultery in the private sphere, would they also diminish insider trading? Murder? Etc. I don't draw the line at adultery, I draw the line at exhibited patterns of dishonesty.
In the case of the presidential contest, we're not considering women in abusive relationships who felt the need to find love in another man's arms: we are considering men who have been accused of (Cain) or admitted to (Gingrich) a long term pattern of lying to their spouses.
That is disqualifying, in my view, because it leads one to wonder what other decisions the candidate will make for the sake of expediency.
Not to mention the risk of blackmail, the lack of concern for others, the pattern of unnecessary risk taking, etc. All this must be considered.
I couldn't have said it better. Adultery illustrates one's character and this is not a character I want in the White House however well qualified he is in other areas.
Outside of, say, a small town business environment, a VERY intrusive corporate culture, or a VERY indiscreet adulterer, you as the prospective employer should not know and have no business knowing whether a candidate cheats on his wife.
And if you do, it is in no way equivalent to a history of stealing from his employers. The latter actually involves harm to employers and occurs in the context of the workplace. That would be your business as an employer. His sex life, however sordid, is not.
And insider trading and murder are crimes. FOr my part, I would say that a proven record of having committed one or more actual crimes would disqualify a presidential candidate. Not vices that do not constitute crimes. The presidency is a civil rather than religious office.
This does NOT mean voters cannot consider adultery in evaluating a candidate's merits, they can use any personal qualities they want. It just means they are not formal disqualifications for running nor should the press so treat them. Just as citizens can decline to vote for someone solely because they dislike his religion, without it being a "Test".
The employer probably wouldn't know until after hiring the person, just as he might not know about instances of theft, but erparker's hypothetical point is no less true. If the employer did somehow know, the information would be relevant. In our family business employees have hit on female clients, which is obviously not helpful. It would have been nice to know that we were dealing with womanizers beforehand. Apart from that, as erparker points out, adultery implies dishonesty and deceit. Possibly an employee could manage never to bring his dishonesty to work, but a deceitful nature isn't an asset, and deceit in the form of adultery isn't a reassuring sign. An employer has as good a reason to reject employees for vices -- they need not be crimes at all, although of course adultery once was a crime -- as a voter has reason to reject a candidate.
As a woman, I don't want an adulterous man as President for the following reasons: (1) if he lives a double life he may not focus on the demands of state; (2) if he thinks betraying the most important woman in his life is okay how much must he care about women and political issues that affect us; (3) if he is comfortable lying about sex to his wife and family he won't have qualms about lying to the people; (4) a President should set a good example to the nation, which sorely needs one; (5) if Congress and other countries know he cheats how can they trust him? This can affect his ability to be a credible negotiator for our country; (6) Burlusconi, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, et al. We don't need more of that in the press.
Frankly, I can't believe I have to defend the idea that a known adulterer does not belong in the White House! How far we have fallen!
So I take it that you would've never voted for Ronald Reagan? He had an affair with his first wife, Jane Wyman while she was still married in 1938. She divorced her first husband to marry Ronnie but he got cold feet at first. Nancy was two months pregnant with Patty when her and Ronnie got married. So what would we have gotten with no Reagan? Now what about Honest Abe. Now there's a fine fellow. Took away more liberty from American ctiizens than any President in our history. But what a great guy. No sinners need apply? Do you want to win the battle of ideas or the bedroom?
That business about Reagan is conjecture. Wyman was married for three months in 1937-38 and reportedly divorced because her husband wanted children and she didn't. Reagan married her in 1940. Then she cheated on Reagan and divorced him. If you have other information, fine; it's all conjecture.
Sadly, we know all too much about Gingrich, and plenty of the sordid facts are uncontested. No one is perfect; no one is asking for perfection; but it isn't asking too much for the candidate not to be hypocritical and disgusting.
You missed my point. Every candidate is flawed. We all are. The distinction comes whether or not the behavior is in the past or present. Past behavior, acknowledged, admitted for the mistake or bad behavior, thrown on the mercy of God through repentance should be considered no? So we should all vote for Obama (seemingly a committed father and husband) or absaint and suffer the consequences for another four years because someone like a Gingrich (whose ideas are much more palpable) has been a cad in the past. Should not his converting to Catholicism, his admittance of his past sins and repentance (if genuine) count for something? What other "sins" are disqualifying? Lying? Stealing? If I cheated on a test in grade school does that count? No divorcees? Blew that one with Reagan-But wait. Is he not the standard by which candidates are measured? Problem is the good guy candidate in the field (Santorum) couldn't even win his own state last time. Lets try him.
It seemed to me that you were resting a lot of your case on how bad Reagan was, and he wasn't that bad. Wyman left him.
Anyhow, yes, every candidate is flawed, and the stakes are high; if the choice were between Obama and Gingrich, I would have to pick Gingrich. That isn't the choice.
Plus, there are flaws and there are flaws. With Gingrich, the serial adulteries, the dishonesty, the disgustingly selfish behavior (read the Esquire interview with wife #2), the extreme hypocrisy of pursuing Clinton while doing what Clinton was doing -- the picture is too ugly. Of course contrition matters, but I don't think he can be contrite and also run for President. The man is simply too shameful, and his acts of adultery, along with the way he carried them out, go straight to his bad character. Improved character and penitence would advise him not to run.
It's not that simple. Because all we can say is that we know about the first person. We may not know all about the second.
After all, before the scandal hits the news cycle, you trusted the first. Only after his/her sins become public, do you condemn him/her.
Obama has a LONG history of digging up scandals, with the help of the courts to unseal records, and using those scandals against his opponents. So, really, the choice is between:
1) An adulterer
vs.
2) A sleazy politician who slithers around looking for dirt on his opponent, then releases it to an enabling media, with the intention of forcing his opponent to quit, or causing him electoral loss.
And, who does NOT release any information about his background - which does make me wonder what he's hiding.
If the issue of sexual or financial sins is so important, let's do it right - use the money from the Presidential campaign fund to hire private investigators - many of them - with the instruction to dig up everything they can about all the candidates.
Then release the reports. That way, we don't have to worry that one side isn't sleazy enough to grub around in garbage cans, recruit ex-wives to tell all, hound anyone that MIGHT have has sex with the candidate to reveal all, and force all the courts, governing bodies (such as the bar), and institutions to release all records - including passport applications - uncensored.
Heck, while we're at it, let's have a go at family members - oh, wait, we've already done that, for ONE candidate.
As usual, Mr. Prager is thoughtful in his analysis, but I will still cling to my prejudice against adulterers entrusted to political office. If nothing else, their adultery reveals in them a capacity for betrayal and duplicity as well as an inability to control their impulses. This is not a flattering impression from a political candidate... or a neighbor. However, the neighbor will only try to mess with your wife, the candidate will try to mess with the entire country.
Like it or not we are sexual beings, we cannot avoid sexual desire, ‘lust in the heart’ if you will for that is what it means to be human.
But an adult knows the act is wrong, knows the consequences and thus should be capable of the self control needed to refrain. Those incapable reveal immaturity at best.
So while indeed you are right, we cannot necessarily trust any in the media, question is; who would you choose?
All other things being equal, I’d choose the candidate who has shown maturity, self-control and restraint over the wondering willy every time.
Another question to consider is, what is the difference between someone who strays from his/her marriage out of weakness, acknowledges it is wrong and feels guilt, versus someone who strays opportunistically, feels no guilt at all and only regrets getting caught.
Add to that, the second party then accuses the first of hypocrisy. He is of course right, the first party has espoused an ethic which he/she has broken. The second party has no ethics.
Serial adulterers such as Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton are by definition not hypocrits, only cheats and liars.
If a person commits adultery (a husband or wife having voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse), they are a liar, cheat, thief, disrespectful, and unreliable.
What a biased piece, only using democrats as examples as if Newt leading the charge against Clinton WHILE HE WAS CARRYING ON HIS OWN AFFAIR isn't sick enough. Surely he would be attacking Mr. Obama if he had any indescretions.
Only those who are without sin can cast the first stone. Jane Seymour was the only lucky wife of Henry VIII. He came down with a slight case of dead before could decree "off with her head". Because the Catholic Church would not grant Harry an annulment from the second marriage he brought England into the Protestant fold after excoriating Luther and being proclaimed the "Defender of the Faith". Lord Byron in the Corsair mentioned a thousand sins and one virtue. Marital fidelity has its limits as the only metric indicating Byrons tipping point has been reached. Hitler did marry Eva Braun before they committed suicide. Adolph didn't smoke, drink, cuss or chew or went out with Frauleins dat do. Mussolini was hung upside down with his mistress. I'm more inclined to believe the evidence that Jefferson was guilty of Miscegenation through Sally Hemmings. Oddly enough for a Hanoverian King George III was faithful to Queen Charlotte. Thank God for Jefferson and not King George. We all fall short of the Glory of God. Marital fidelity is a positive attribute but not a bare minimum needed to govern effectively. When John Jay lost an election he said "It is better for a man to rule his own soul than to rule the state". Jay is remembered as the minor contributor to the Federalist and as a Supreme Court Judge. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar and unto God that which is Gods. If Newt asked for God's forgiveness for past transgressions that is a slam dunk. Don't do it again like Jimmy Swaggert. King David had Bathsheba's husband assigned to the firont lines to be killed. God wouldn't let him build the Temple but his son did.
Please get your facts straight. Jane Seymour was Henry VIII's third wife and died shortly after giving birth to his heir, the future Edward VI. You're thinking of Henry's sixth and last wife, Katherine Parr.
We're fallible, not angelic. We all make mistakes. The question is whether we learn from those mistakes and resolve not to repeat them. Or whether we continue to engage in that bad behavior.
A husband who had a one-night stand and then realized he had done something wrong and resolved never to do it again, is someone I would actually respect.
A husband who continues to be a serial adulterer, repeatedly lying to his wife, is someone I would not trust to do anything else. Because such a person is willing to do things in secret and then lie through his teeth about them repeatedly. That's not someone I can trust as my leader. He betrayed his wife, he could betray me.
