MAGDZIK: Scrutinize private lives

Last Thursday’s Republican debate featured a prime instance of one of the most pernicious movements in modern American politics — the attempt to divorce the private and public lives of politicians and to make the former illegitimate fodder for voter scrutiny. Americans, and conservatives in particular, should resist this folly.

For those of you who have been buried under mounds of reading that you are just now starting to realize you are obliged to complete (alas, the downside of the illusory freedom of shopping period), a brief explanation is perhaps in order. Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich cheated on two of his wives, and his second wife, Marianne Ginther, alleged in a Jan. 19 ABC Nightline interview that Gingrich had suggested an open marriage to her.

That evening, CNN anchor John King asked Gingrich if he wanted to respond to the situation. Gingrich’s response: “To take an ex-wife and make it, two days before a primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.”

Wrong, Newt. Personal morality is one of the most relevant issues during a presidential campaign. In the American system, we don’t vote directly on policies but on people. Presidents make all sorts of decisions in secret or with little accountability. The field of national security is perhaps the best example; because of the need for secrecy in security, ordinary Americans cannot have a great deal of oversight. Decisions about drone programs, shadow courts authorizing assassinations and terrorist holdings are left to the discretion of our commander-in-chief.

We cannot possibly predict everything the president will run up against, so we are left to choose someone we think has the best judgments and morals that conform to ours. Analysis of policy track records can only take you so far because campaign promises and the policies someone fought for as a senator or governor are never really binding.

Consider the hypothetical example of a female conservative candidate who loudly proclaimed that she absolutely believed abortion was murder and planned to overturn Roe v. Wade — and turned out to have had five or six abortions over the course of her life, including one during the campaign. It would be a bizarre spot of cognitive dissonance to just ignore that fact because it concerns her private life, wouldn’t it?

Examination of private life lends insight into the character and nature of a candidate. Shockingly, someone who cheats on two ailing wives may not in fact be the best leader for a new moral majority based in part on the sanctity of marriage. Herman Cain’s campaign fell apart under the same logic of personal accountability in politics — it wasn’t that he advocated misogynistic federal policies, but his private behavior seemed to indicate that his morals did not sufficiently conform to our collective expectations for us to choose him as our national figurehead.

There is the added element of international prestige to consider. Diplomacy is a game conducted largely according to established rituals and admittedly petty practices. How long a president meets with someone or whether he bows or shakes hands the right way — all these things have an impact on foreign relations. Buffoonery is generally perceived very poorly by foreign dignitaries. An elected official with serious ideas can make critical missteps. Candidates’ characteristic failings in judgment might warn us about those potential future political missteps. The Italians just got rid of their philandering egomaniacal leader. Let’s not install our own.

Of course, personal life should not be the only characteristic voters consider — charisma can blind people to policy flaws, for sure. But it should certainly be balanced against other considerations, not considered too sacred to touch in a campaign. The presidency is the most important job in America and perhaps still the world. It should be subject to the ultimate scrutiny. If that is unpleasant for the candidates, that’s unfortunate — but the practice remains necessary.

Michael Magdzik is a junior in Berkeley College. Contact him at michael.magdzik@yale.edu.

Comments

  • The Anti-Yale

    “All’s fair in love and war.”

    Ex-anything (wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, lovers) are notoriously unreliable sources of dispassionate information.

    Let’s choose a president based on the views of “a woman scorned.”

    HRRRMPH.

  • Robbie

    @theantiyale: I’m not so sure that Michael is making a reference to the specific testimony of Newt’s exes. In fact, I don’t really think his article is really pointing fingers at anyone specifically. True, Newt is front and center, but this is more of an assessment of our way of viewing candidates in general, right? After all, he does mention Herman Cain as well, and, if asked, I would predict he’d have a dim view of certain parts of the Clinton administration, too.

    (Incidentally, Newt’s mistresses and Newt himself have also admitted to the affairs. It’s also objectively true that his wives were ill at the time, no matter what they themselves say. It seems a little silly to accuse someone of making judgments based on “a woman scorned” when the only specific thing brought up by one of the exes is the “open marriage” thing, which seems to pale in comparison to the admitted truth that he cheated on a cancer-ridden spouse – twice.)

    You also forgot to put the information about your degree at the bottom of that post where you usually place it. For shame. Please be sure to include it in any potential responses, just so we’re all clear about your education. One might call it into question otherwise.

  • The Anti-Yale

    I chose what degree I deposit after my name by its potential for irritating readers. In this case, i didn’t think divinity, education, or English would irritate anybody. Apparently their absence irritated you since you had no food for ridicule.

    Paul Keane
    HHS ’63
    Mr. Class Spirit

    • Robbie

      It’s not so much the class info that irritates me as your claim that a cancer patient and divorcee victimized by a wrecked home is most notable for being a scorned woman, and that the unreliability of the words of same is the only problem with this situation.

  • The Anti-Yale

    PS

    Call me Ishmael for saying so, but nowhere is monogamy a biblical benchmark.

    That book is flooded with polygamist males ( Freud, it should be noted, did not write “Moses and Monogamy” ) including, Abraham who took a concubine. Hagar, to provide himself with a male heir, Ishmael,

    Ishmael, bastard son, ( and father of the future Arab Tribes) , provided biblical genealogists an illegitimacy obsessively rehearsed for centuries until we have a Middle East in constant dispute over authenticity.

    Isaac, Abraham’s “legitimate” son, was a surprise child, produced by Sarah at 90 after she and Abraham had stopped trying so hard and relaxed, OR produced by divine fiat with Sarah as a gestation-vehicle ( Perhaps making Jesus the SECOND son of God?—New fodder for future religious war !)

    Anyway, if you’re going to go investigating “personal morality” in presidential candidates then valorize Mitt Romney’s great grandfather who, achieving biblical benchmarks, was himself a polygamist.

    PK

    (Now I’ll do it — M. Div., ’80 —– Did that irritate anyone in the pompous world of academic lettering?)

  • River_Tam

    > Anyway, if you’re going to go investigating “personal morality” in presidential candidates then valorize Mitt Romney’s great grandfather who, achieving biblical benchmarks, was himself a polygamist.

    If you can’t see the difference between the conduct and a man and his great grandfather, then you are depraved.

    I (a staunch Republican, as anyone who’s read my comments knows) will NOT vote for Newt Gingrich under any circumstances. A man who cheats on his first wife with his second and his second with his third is an odious man and one who I don’t want to see as the leader of this nation.

    I’d prefer a misguided man like Obama to a first-class jerk like Gingrich.

  • The Anti-Yale

    Lighten up RT. The Ten COMMANDMENTS aren’t COMMANDMENTS because people OBEY them. They are COMMANDMENTS because people don’t.

    As for Romney’s grandfather: he achieved the benchmark for polygamy. Nice goin.

    PK

    • River_Tam

      I couldn’t care less whether or not adultery is mentioned in the Bible. His philandering behavior classifies him as an odious human being regardless of your religion.

      Again, you attempt to equivocate between the misdoings of a man and the misdoings of his forebearers. What a joke.

      • Reddit

        e·quiv·o·cate
           [ih-kwiv-uh-keyt] Show IPA
        verb (used without object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing.
        to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge: When asked directly for his position on disarmament, the candidate only equivocated.

        I think you meant to say “equate”.

  • The Anti-Yale

    “between the misdoings of a man and the misdoings of his forebearers. What a joke.”

    That’s my point. I’m satirizing those who use the bible as a benchmark for morality or any other subjective category.

    Joke it indeed is.

    As for Newt, were he to become president he would fit in nicely with presidential philanderers FDR and JFK.

    • River_Tam

      > That’s my point. I’m satirizing those who use the bible as a benchmark for morality or any other subjective category.

      You don’t need to use the Bible to know that breaking your marital vows – and betraying the trust of TWO women who you supposedly love with all your heart – is wrong.

      > As for Newt, were he to become president he would fit in nicely with presidential philanderers FDR and JFK.

      And if he were to own slaves, he would fit in nicely with Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe. If he were to put citizens of Japanese descent into camps he’d fit in nicely with FDR. If he were to destroy his political opponents using the FBI he’d fit in nicely with Nixon.

      Simply because others have done something does not make it right or acceptable. JFK and FDR’s affairs were not common knowledge when they were elected.

  • silliwin01

    ITT: We learn RT is a feminist.

    • River_Tam

      I know, right?

      It’s almost like you can hate both marital infidelity AND wymym’s and gyndyr stydys myjyrs.

  • The Anti-Yale

    “JFK and FDR’s affairs were not common knowledge when they were elected.”

    Which means they were hypocrites and Newt is not.

    Maybe monogamy an endangered species.

    PK

    • Robbie

      What of times like this, when you use just your initials? Who’s that meant to irritate?

    • River_Tam

      Newt “admitted” that he cheated after he got caught. The media never reported on JFK and FDR (although the affairs were known among reporters) because it was considered gauche at the time to pry into the private lives of high society. Adulterers everywhere think they’re SO BRAVE for “admitting” that they’ve adulterated (that’s not the right word, I just think it sounds funny) when their wives call them out on it.

      Monogamy might be an endangered species, but I’m hardly going to give a medal to the guy who’s shooting Dodo’s all over the place.

  • The Anti-Yale

    It means I’m busy.

    I work full time and squeeze a comment in before breakfast at 5 AM, on coffee break during the day, or now at home in between errands —–with typos as a predictable result of my haste.
    PK