.

Politics and Sex: Public Bedfellows Again

New 'bombshell' revelations about Newt Gingrich aren't surprising, but should they matter?

Oooh, Newt, you bad boy! Seems we hardly knew ye.

Well, actually, we did.

We already knew of your past marital infidelities and failings—even if we didn’t know all the sordid details your ex-wife is coming forward with now—for the same old reason: because politics and sex make repeated bedfellows. And I mean that with every sense of the pun intended.

At press-time, news had leaked about an interview that Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife, Marianne Gingrich, had given to ABC News. She reportedly told reporter Brian Ross that Newt had asked for an ‘open marriage,’ confessing to an affair and suggesting they stay married while allowing him to maintain his extramarital relationship as well.

Seems it’s getting harder and harder to find a politician who doesn’t have some titillating thing to hide in their past. And I don’t know why we continue to make such a big deal when we do find they’ve had some moral lapse of libidinous judgment.

Sure, the media maven in me understands that it makes juicy copy and great ratings. But the realist in me just yawns.

For I just don’t get why it’s such a surprise and why it makes a difference. Marital infidelity is a personal, private issue. Sexual kinks and peccadilloes, while they carry an ooooh factor, are human. People of all types—not just politicians—stray, experiment and have a spectrum of (ahem) different interests. That doesn’t necessarily make them bad politicians.

I have this fantasy about the perfect candidate. I picture someone announcing a candidacy, at whatever level of public political service, who understands the process: if you have something to hide, at some point in the campaign it will come out. For sure. So just announce it yourself at the start. Why? It takes the punch out of any effort your opponents might make to use it against you; you get the chance to put the spin on it you want; and it becomes less of a story than if you just deny it for days on end mid-campaign (see Herman Cain, Anthony Weiner or John Edwards).

Except…

Except if your indiscretion interfered with your job, if you did anything illegal to commit it or cover it up, or if you are a hypocrite and tried to hold yourself to a double standard. Sadly, history has shown that most of the time such hypocrisy and law-breaking goes hand-in-hand with sexually loose politicians.

At the same time that Gingrich was asking his then-second wife to be a little flexible with their marriage vows, he was defending “traditional family values” and has still continued to speak out about traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman. He was also vigorously pursuing impeachment proceedings against then President Clinton because of Monica Lewinsky.

This isn’t solely a Republican issue: Eliot Spitzer was brought down as governor of New York when it was discovered that he’d been a longtime paying client of a prostitution service, despite a history of prosecutions against the sex trade industry; as well there were levels of improper actions associated with the money exchanged for the sexual services Spitzer received.

The list of examples could be endless.

Of course I’d prefer that the higher standard to which we hold our politicians would not be one of marital fidelity, but rather of fidelity to political knowledge, fair leadership, international statesmanship, morality—and the law. When we have candidates who don’t know what continent Libya is part of or who can’t remember the names of the governmental agencies they want to eliminate, it’s good to see the electorate speaking by withholding their votes.

I’m not so naïve that I don’t understand what politics is really about: it is a scramble for money and power. And when you’re at the top of your game, with the favors and friends and contributors and all that the position comes with, it also comes with the illusion that the rules just don’t apply to you. You’re above it all, you can do what you want and not be penalized.

Hopefully, when the inevitable does come out, we voters are more understanding of which offense is the worst of potential evils and which is just an indiscretionary roll in the hay.

Bryan January 22, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Candide it's hard to know where to start with such a hypocritical comment like that from a Liberal. To begin with who came out with this story two days before a primary? The liberals ie;the Liberal Press. So your saying it was a waste of time to impeach Clinton, a sitting President who was married, when he was lying to a court of law about receiving oral sex in the White House from an Intern.but it's ok to report and influence a Party's primary when a husband has a private conversation with his wife? At least we have seen that the Republican voters are smart enough to realize the hack job ABC did in this incident and Gingrich probably gained votes in this one. Keep it up Liberals! We love it.
Andrea Schara January 23, 2012 at 04:13 PM
In watching Gingrich I see political brilliance, along with a tiny bit of self-reflection, not strong enough to control the tendency to refocus the blame on others or to control those he has been close to. The challenge for society is to measure the soundness of any leaders’ behavior. There is no measuring stick to know if we are being deceiving or if policies and behaviors are sound. It is a legitimate social problem, as social systems are primitive and can easily regress, without responsible leaders. One clue, the more mature look at their part in any problem, and try to define what he or she can do to alter their part, without diverting attention by heaping blame on others. Consider how many would have cheered if Gingrich said, I take responsibility for my part in this instead of blaming the media and the wife. Easy to appealed to the primitive, to blame others and to say; it is not my problem. All around us people find it expedient to blame the scapegoats: the acting out child, the different one, rather than focus on taking responsibility for our own human tendency to err while justifying not relating well to the troubled ones. When society is lead astray by popularizing blaming others, letting self off the hook, and deeply believing we have no part in the problems we see before us, society courts disaster. Andrea Schara
Reverend Barbara Sexton January 23, 2012 at 11:18 PM
GAME ON!
Reverend Barbara Sexton January 23, 2012 at 11:20 PM
I like Newt and I'm not ashamed ('afraid') to say it. It's going to be an interesting election year around these parts, Heather. http://www.dearoneshealingministry.blogspot.com/2012/01/gay-communitys-strange-cruel-attempt-to.html http://www.dearoneshealingministry.blogspot.com/2012/01/original-text-archived-screen-shot-of.html Blessings-Rev. Barb
Franklin Wong January 24, 2012 at 11:07 PM
About moral judgements. I personally don't care what a person does in private. Public figures have all the right to to conduct their private lives in whatever many ways they choose. I am fascinated by Newt's relations with women and his telling of history. But who cares what Marianne says. I think it has the makings of a good novelette. Newt's historical recollections are like the Abbot and Costello routine of Who's on First and What's on Second except Newt does both the Abbot and Costello role. I love a good comedy routine. Seriously, Newt is a hypocrite and a white male supremacist and I would love to see him be the Republican Party nominee. If we are lucky, we might get "I'm not running for President" Sarah Palin to be nominated for vice-president.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »