The Private Lives of Public Men
Lately, there have been a lot of nasty rumors floating around about Rudy and Judith Giuliani. I’ve heard, for instance, that he’s been having an affair. I’ve also heard that she, wife number three, is a royal pain in the butt who goes berserk if anyone dares call her Judy.
Now, I enjoy gossip as much as the next fellow. Maybe even more, depending on whom that fellow happens to be. But when it comes to electing a president, I don’t really care about his personal life or his wife’s idiosyncrasies. I don’t care, believe it or not, if Fred Thompson and Dennis Kucinich are married to women decades younger than themselves. Frankly, I didn’t even care that Bill Clinton dallied with Monica Lewinsky. I took his perjury seriously, but not his philandering. I did figure he could have done better than Ms. Lewinsky, being commander in chief and all, but that’s neither here nor there. I simply don’t expect politicians to be saintly. Besides, a lot of saints weren’t the least bit saintly before they had their epiphanies.
I’m not taking this position because I have had two divorces of my own, although that does give me a perspective that others might lack. The fact is, in many cases, there are probably better, more rational, reasons for people to get divorced than they had for getting married in the first place.
It stands to reason that people who share my politics might not share my point of view. After all, conservatives tend to put a premium on morals and so-called family values. I happen to believe that I am an honorable man of sterling character. I am, after all, friendly, loyal and extremely dependable. Is it any wonder that, if the Hindus are right and that reincarnation really exists, I’d like to come back as a dog? Who wouldn’t want to have all of his virtues cherished, while being fed, bathed and having his tummy rubbed, on a regular basis?
I realize that a fair number of Americans could never bring themselves to vote for a man who’s gone through one or two divorces. They’d view him as a deeply flawed individual. On the other hand, there might be something to be said for electing such a man. After all, it shows that he is able to acknowledge that he’s made a mistake, but that he has an optimistic spirit and is ready to pick up the pieces and move on. He is the sort who can say, and mean, better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. Although even I can see where there is such a thing as saying it too often.
For those who believe that divorce is reason enough to write off a presidential candidate, let me remind you that Ronald Reagan was a divorced man, and that FDR and LBJ weren’t, and Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton aren’t!
We should all keep in mind that politics is not the clergy, and being president is not a sacred calling. All I ask of the man in the Oval Office isn’t that he be my moral superior, but that he has the courage of my convictions.
Television writer Burt Prelutsky is the author of %%AMAZON=1581825714 ‘Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco (101 Reasons Why I’m Happy I Left the Left)’%%
Couldn’t agree more with Prelutsky. The French are right on this one. Let’s go back to the days when our political reporters stayed out of the bedrooms. Keep that stuff for the memoirs – summer reading.
“After all, conservatives tend to put a premium on morals and so-called family values.”
Many religious conservatives need to read their own theologians. Both Martin Luther and Thomas Aquinas believed it is best to select the most qualified leader. The individual’s personal morals are normally of secondary importance. For some peculiar reason, an utopian approach became popular in the United States. In many respects, it is heretical!
The United States is in a fight to the death against Islamic nihilism. I am reasonably confident the previously cited Christian theologians would vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008.
I too felt that President Clinton’s perjury flaw dwarfed his marital fidelity nullification.
I’d have felt better about the folks who bring me the news if they’d had the honesty to address that difference, but they were so desperate to paper over both examples of misconduct of their tarnished idol Bubba that they failed to shine light where it was needed.
More Pajamas, please.
I’d like to come back as a dog? Who wouldn’t want to have all of his virtues cherished, while being fed, bathed and having his tummy rubbed, on a regular basis?
Are you forgetting that dogs get neutered? Of course, if we neutered our presidents it might solve some problems as well.
Mr. Prelutsky is correct when he says we should not reject a leader because of a divorce, but I believe we should look at the circumstances of the divorce. McCain and F. Thompson are both divorced, and Senator McCain was primarily at fault for his divorce. He has reconciled with his ex-wife, and to my knowledge, been faithful to his current wife. Guilianni was unfaithful to his 2nd wife and publically announced the divorce before he told her. I don’t think I can vote for him in a primary.
THE DIVORCE IS NOT THE PROBLEM, THE REASON’S ARE VITAL AS TO THE CONDUCT OF BOTH PARTIES. WE JUDGE THE CHARACTER OF CHOICES & CONTRIBUTING FACTORS THAT BRING
BOTH PARTIES INTO THIS PERIL OF SEPARATION.
EMOTIONAL INSTABILITY IS DETRIMENTAL TO ANY PERSON ATTEMPTING TO COME INTO PUBLIC
OFFICE AND THIS IS WHERE THE VOTING CITIZEN
MUST LOOK. RIDING A SWING WHEN MAKING IMPORTANT DECISIONS OR DEALING WITH OTHERS COULD CAUSE THE SEAT ON THE SWING TO FALL, PAINFUL FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED WITH SWINGING THE SWING. HISTORY HAS SHOWN HOW FULL CIRCLE WE ARE COMING AND THE MERRYGROUND IS DEMANDING MORE TO BE PUSHED. STRENGTH AND FAITHFULNESS IS NEEDED TO SHOW POSSITIVE RESPONSIBILITY.
IS ANYONE OUT THEIR NOW WITH THESE QUALIFICATIONS ?
PERFECTION is only attributable to one man in history. The rest of us, Popes included, make stupid mistakes all the time. No moral person should ever claim a ‘defect-free’ history. Perfection is not necessary to be a human. What is required of any leader is to be determined to do right, to pursue ethical goals, to acknowledge mistakes, and show a vision for the future. In Buddhism, there is a sin specifically related to claiming to be perfect.
Well, none of this is new.
After all, the rumors of Jefferson’s black son were spread by a political enemy, and if Rudy thinks he has a problem with wife number three, at least he was not a bigamist like Andew Jackson, who married a woman after news of her divorce arrived…and later found the news was false.
I suspect that most Americans are more comfortable with a person of honor than one who strives, impossibly, for perfection.
Decision making is rather clear cut for an honest person if the public has been prepared by their own honor to handle honesty.
Regards, Dennis
There may be religious conservatives out there who wouldn’t vote for someone who had been divorced, but I haven’t found any among the hundreds that I know. I think many of the claims about how religious conservatives will vote are calculated rumors, based on a very small percentage of actual citizens.
“the rumors of Jefferson’s black son were spread by a political enemy”
As were the rumors, which emerged during the 2000 South Carolina primary campaign, about an illegitimate child allegedly fathered by John McCain with a black woman.
What lovely people you Republicans are.
Adultery, and divorce, have consequences that I never hear spoken in these types of “open minded” discussions, which always seem to focus on the pol, and not the spouse. I find these discussions, and the approving attitude taken by an adulterer’s supporters, to be shallow and unconvincing. They always focus on their political hero and not nearly enough on the known-but-unseen victims of their actions – or the actions themselves:
Gavin Newsom betrayed his Best Friend (and Campaign Manager) whose wife was reportedly drunk at the time. Then he had the gall to show up, to “show support”, when his former-friend tried to launch a new career. (The friend/former campaign manager walked out in disgust.)
Antonio Villaragosa, L.A.’s mayor, was caught cheating with a Telemundo reporter, which got her suspended, and, I think, some other people fired. Villaragosa’s name is melded with his wife’s: I wonder how she feels about that now?
Lying to your spouse. Humiliating your spouse. Convincing the spouse they’re crazy for suspecting such a thing. Emotional breakdowns. Fighting your spouse (who’s done nothing wrong except trusting the adulterer) for what’s left in the marriage. The effects of betrayal may trigger mental illness, which may become permanent. (Some type of paranoia may set in, if others knew of the betrayal.) The ability to form new relationships may be hampered – or disappear altogether. Friendships can be destroyed as people are forced to choose sides. The “popular” spouse can lie about their reasons for doing wrong – or deny wrong altogether – and face less scrutiny. The pain, and confusion, of the children.
And, if the adulterer is a public person, there’s the added pain of hearing people, who didn’t experience such cruelty, say that what’s happened to the deserted spouse is of no consequence. Or how about the anguish of hearing the roar of the approving crowd for someone who the betrayed knows, clearly, deserves a lot less.
And let’s not forget:
In states with “no fault” divorce, the betrayed has to accept 50% of the blame for the destruction of the marriage – no matter what the adulterer may have done on their own. That would really make anyone’s day, wouldn’t it?
I could go on. And on and on. I guess, I just wanted to make clear, I really don’t think most people give this as much thought – or are as sensitive to the needs of the victims – as necessary.