So here’s my question…
If McCarthy was ineligible for Speaker because of an affair (that’s one rumor, anyway), why would Newt Gingrich be okay? He’s certainly had affairs.
Or, for that matter, Donald Trump has certainly had em, as well (I realize he’s not running for Speaker; he’s running for president).
Seriously—in this day and age, I’m not sure what affairs mean any more in politics. Have we not arrived at the European attitude on that, too, since we’ve Europeanized ourselves almost beyond recognition in so many other ways?
Affairs and other sexual dalliances and peccadilloes are usually trotted out to take down conservatives rather than liberals, because the conservatives who act that way are considered (or at least are accused of being) hypocrites, whereas the liberals are just doing what they do. But Newt is a conservative, and it doesn’t seem to be an issue these days, and Trump pretends to be a conservative, and his history of affairs doesn’t even seem to be on anyone’s radar screen. Is it all part of his “charm”?
My own views on whether affairs should disqualify politicians from office have got to appear somewhere on this blog, but darned if I know where to find them. So I’ll just restate: all else being equal, I’d prefer someone squeaky clean. But it’s not a requirement; I recognize that affairs happen quite often, and I think that cheating in the sexual realm in one’s private life does not necessarily transfer to corruption or untrustworthiness in public life. Each person should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I realize that many people would disagree with that. But it’s been my observation that the two realms are often, although not always, compartmentalized.
See I think adultery shows a deep character flaw because it is a willful breaking of a vow. If a person can’t keep one promise, then we shouldn’t be so ready to trust him with other promises. If some people can “compartmentalize” one vow from another, it shows hypocrisy at best, and schizophrenia at worst.
On the other hand, like you often say, people can change their minds. Well, people can also repent of the bad things that they have done, and in doing so, and in taking steps to re-establish their credibility, should still be given the benefit of the doubt. After all, we are all sinners.
So in that regard, I would not weigh, for example, Newt Gingrich’s infidelities the same as I would weigh John Edwards’ or Bill Clinton’s, but neither would I completely dismiss them.
Ultimately, however, if I were to hold candidates to the kind of moral standard I try to live up to, I doubt I’d be able to find someone to vote for. Or at least not easily.
ConceptJunkie:
However, sex is an aspect of life that is already somewhat naturally compartmentalized from other aspects. It exists in its own very private and intense realm, in some ways. There are plenty of people who have committed adultery who are moral in their business lives and public lives. And there are plenty of people who have not committed adultery who are corrupt in their business and public lives.
Times have changed since the 90s. Rumors go viral in seconds. Twitter and other social media accounts do exponentially more damage to someone’s character than a National Enquirer expose of the past.
I think it really started with the Benghazi boo-boo. McCarthy messed up big time. I think that was the beginning of it. Maybe he decided he couldn’t handle the heat the role would bring, or others convinced him to drop out.
Either way, I’m good with it. The Republican Party needs a shake up.
neo: Just because people “compartmentalize” these things in their lives does not mean that they are truly compartmentalizable, nor are they completely orthogonal to each other. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
I don’t buy the idea someone doing something inexcusable in something that is completely unrelated to his duty means that it is completely without with effect, either as a measure of a person’s judgement, nor of the potential for it to spill over into professional or political life. Both Edwards and Clinton that I mentioned above are perfect examples.
If you disagree with me that’s fine, but I think it’s fair to say that it is, at least, a matter of opinion.
When Bill Clinton’s ‘affair’ with Monica Lewinsky was finally proven, my hardcore-Lefty former partner (who had previously denied that there there was anything to the story) told me that history has proven over and over that great men [like Clinton] often have great sexual appetites that simply must be satisfied, and that we should not begrudge them their due. He gave several examples besides Clinton: JFK, FDR(!), various movies stars, athletes (like Wilt Chamberlain), more that I can’t remember right now. I think about that conversation every time I hear about another politician’s affair (Newt, Edwards, Petraeus).
ConceptJunkie:
What makes you think I disagree with you? I already noted that sometimes it’s connected, but sometimes compartmentalized, and sometimes people are quite chaste in their private lives but corrupt in their political lives.
I just don’t think the correlation is anywhere near what many people think it is. However, I assume some sort of correlation.
carl in atlanta:
You may have noticed that partisans don’t tend to be consistent in their judgments of the opposition versus their favored candidates.
I try to apply the same standards to all.
“…why would Newt Gingrich be okay?”
Because he’s not being taken seriously as a Speaker candidate yet, that’s why.
If his candidacy gets traction, believe me, the long knives will come out.
If they could smear Mitt Romney for mild hazing of a college student fifty years (!) earlier, or say that he was unfit to be President because of how he’d treated the family dog decades earlier, then they can certainly bring up Newt’s affairs… and they will.
Daniel in Brookline:
That was a hypothetical question about Newt. That’s why I used the phrase “would be” rather than “is.”
But I actually think a different standard would be used for Newt if he were to run, perhaps because his affairs are old, old news. I also don’t think the affair rumors are why McCarthy dropped out, although some people are saying that’s the reason.
various movies stars, athletes (like Wilt Chamberlain), more that I can’t remember right now. I think about that conversation every time I hear about another politician’s affair (Newt, Edwards, Petraeus).
The Left tends to use the “great man” excuse to justify Stalin and Mao’s killings as well. Which is what makes them dangerous, these Leftists, rather than adorable or cuddly or merely misguided.
A person can look at history and say that people in power tend to gather harems, without approving of that practice. But that’s not how the Left functions, they are very focused on WMDeceptions.
But it’s not a requirement; I recognize that affairs happen quite often, and I think that cheating in the sexual realm in one’s private life does not necessarily transfer to corruption or untrustworthiness in public life.
It makes it easier to have leverage on such a person, such as Petraeus, in order to bend them to your will, which can be harmful to the body politic.
As for why things are different now, internet sub communities and OODA times may be part of it, but another part of it is that people have gotten tougher. The Left’s propaganda weapons no longer have the same effect as they did before, now that the Left’s mask has slipped off.
Neo-neocon, at Powerline now in their links header at the top of their homepage is a link to an article published today at the Library of Law and Liberty site by Diana Schaub, asserting and arguing that the Speaker must be a member of the House. It’s a good ‘un, therefore recommended.
“often although not always” leaves a great deal of wiggle room, Neo.
There is no wiggle room in the Ten Commandments. The wiggle comes from Adam having eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
A commandment from God merits more than a wiggle. “Oh, So-and-so’s personal life is messy, but in office he is righteous and pure” doesn’t meet the test of the Commandments. We all are born into Natural Law. We know them without them being taught us. We knowingly choose to break the Commandments when we do so.
There are a few places for absolutism in this life. Obeying the Commandments is one.
With wiggle room comes moral relativism.
Frog:
I’m not the deity, and I don’t hold politicians to strict religious standards. There would be no one to vote for if a person’s not violating any of the Ten Commandments were required.
Have you never taken the Lord’s name in vain? Disrespected a parent? Coveted something? Violated the Sabbath? Voted for anyone who did?
While we are thinking out of the box about Speakership, how about Dennis Prager. He said Friday, on his radio show, he is interested in the job.
He believes he could a spouse Conservative principles and bridge the gap between sides in Congress.
One of the qualities Newt, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and yes, Obama have are an ability to communicate effectively. Dennis is one of the most effective speakers I’ve ever listeheard. Any thoughts Neo?
This subject is a perfect example of how the left uses the virtue of those on the right against them. Guilt is a powerful weapon.
Neo: I thought you were talking about adultery (private) vs. corruption (public). I simply referred to the absolutism of natural law. You lower the level of discourse when you equate those to lesser failings. Violating the Sabbath is not on the same plane as adultery or theft, I humbly submit.
Yes, we are all sinners. But that does not mean we should condone sin, whether public or private.
Frog:
You were talking about the Ten Commandments as having “no wiggle room.” Your words; not mine:
So, you apparently have your own formula for which commandments are allowed wiggle room and which are not.
And I repeat: I don’t use religious tests for politicians—although, as I wrote in the post, I’d prefer someone squeaky clean. I consider politicians human and therefore flawed, and evaluate them all accordingly, weighing the good and the bad.
No, Neo. I do not equate coveting something with murder. There is clearly a priority to the Commandments, and having failed to observe the Sabbath is not on a par with adultery.
But let’s leave it, shall we?
That’s because if you fooled around with women in those days, their families would declare blood feud on you and yours.
Which essentially means “no adultery” is equal in priority with “no murder”, because they are all connected together back then.
I heard first-hand Sean Hannity’s interview with Newt on Friday.
(A 2 minute 20 second clip is online at Youtube.)
I have seen nowhere, I think, Gingrich’s multipart thumbnail of what a new House Speaker ought to be doing!
I’ve wanted to rehear or read it because then it could be expanded and elaborated on as something like a platform.
New Speaker candidates might then be judged accordingly to how they could or would fail to advance its objectives.
Does anyone have a problem with that?
The closest to doing this public service is the Washington Examiner article, which concludes:
“Gingrich, who lost in his bid to become the GOP nominee for president in 2012, went on to give Hannity a rundown of what could make the next speaker’s tenure a successful one. Particularly, he argued for picking public fights with the president and taking on the Senate on a multitude of issues while unifying the conference in the House.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gingrich-says-hed-consider-interim-speakership/article/2573731
SHOULD’NT this BE WHERE THE DEBATE ON THE RIGHT GOES?