Stop me if you've heard this one before: A popular and highly respected political leader is watching his career go up in flames after being caught in a scandalous affair that went on for months behind his wife's back.
It's just about the oldest story in politics. I don't need to tell you that you could substitute any one of about a dozen names in place of John Edwards -- Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, Jim McGreevey, even Gary Condit to some extent -- and the details and end result would basically be the same. In fact, it's the lack of any real sense of shock that's likely at least partially to blame for the mainstream media's reluctance to pursue the story of Edwards's philandering until he came right out and confessed on national television. Although there's little doubt that many "respectable" news organizations were uncomfortable sifting through a field plowed by the National Enquirer, at least a few journalists must have looked at even the hint of another political sex scandal and thought to themselves, "Dear God, not again." Especially not when there are so many consequential issues to be reported on this election season (which isn't meant to imply that these issues actually are being reported on).
But now, once again, the machinery winds up, the shame and humiliation are piled on, the suspiciously contrived contrition is dispensed and, most of all, the pundits and experts line up to debate the supposedly elusive and incomprehensible question of why.
Why would a person like John Edwards, who seemed to have it all, blow everything he'd worked so hard for in the pursuit of quick sex? What made him think he could get away with it?
The answer to the first question is in the question itself: Edwards wanted to get laid because he's a person, and that's what people do. Where we ever got the idea that anyone is above his or her most basic impulses -- particularly the desire to have sex -- is beyond me. What made Edwards think he could get away with it? Nothing. He wasn't thinking at all, and any attempt to rationalize his behavior -- from some bullshit about how the attention lavished on him made him egotistical and narcissistic, to the lamentation of weakness in the face of temptation -- is essentially folly. John Edwards had been married for 31 years to the same woman, and no matter how attractive, intelligent, loyal or universally admired that woman is, there's one thing she can't possibly ever be: somebody else. And somebody else, even for a short time, is what most men and women -- most human beings -- want after three decades of marriage. It's human nature, and only our absurdly puritanical views on sex, coupled with the social mores and stigmas that are the inevitable products of such beliefs, would render it so unspeakably immoral.
What's immoral, actually, is that the bizarre culturally ingrained sentiment which equates marital fidelity with unassailable integrity put John Edwards in a position where he couldn't admit to his urges and was forced to truly betray both his loved ones and constituents by lying to them all. It's the unrealistic expectation of absolute purity and righteousness that will eventually doom almost every person in authority -- man or woman -- to fail us entirely, and that makes the belief system itself wrong. If I'm not mistaken, the religious -- who bear so much of the blame for these antiquated philosophies -- would call this "hating the sin, not the sinner."
John Edwards cheated on his wife. In chasing down that most enticing of hedonistic thrills, he betrayed her -- and for that painful mistake he has to answer to her and no one else. Although hardly anyone would suggest that putting your marriage at risk in the name of a quick affair is the right thing to do, almost everyone should know by now that it's understandable. Even forgivable. This is true whether the person involved in the affair is a politician or a postal worker. Both are driven by the same desires and either can fall victim to them. The people we elect to office are, at their core, still just people.
There can and will be plenty of debate over whether Edwards used campaign money to further his affair -- a revelation that would in fact be unethical if not outright illegal. And there's plenty of cause for finger wagging at the sheer stupidity of his actions, given that, as a man under intense scrutiny 24/7, there was zero chance of his affair not being discovered at some point. But once again, John Edwards wasn't thinking about that. He wasn't thinking at all.
He was just doing what human beings sometimes do -- what none of us is above.
Follow Chez Pazienza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chezpazienza
The point you are missing involves the many risks Mr. Edwards took and the consequences to innocent people. Of all the varied risks Mr. Edwards took was the risk of contracting an STD that he could have (may have) given to his wife whose immune system is already compromised by cancer. Certain STDs remain hidden with long incubation periods, while some can be transmitted through kissing and that puts his children at risk.
I do not know how christians (lowercase c intended) or puritans rationalize this, but as an atheist; morals, honesty, integrity, faithfulness to oaths, all matter a great deal to me.
He took the vow to be faithful, so now he committed adultery with some girl who took advantage of a
giddy man who acted like a school kid getting attention from a girl.
Will these married men ever learn....Keep your mind on your work and not on your zipper.
Sounds like the monkey who lost his head over a little piece of tail, when it was run over by a train.
It IS between John and Elizabeth. And for all of those self-righteous and moralizing Christians who are gnashing their teeth (who, by the way, are not ALL Christians), just remember that the Bible says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." In fact, Jesus himself said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
If only Americans would get this up in arms over something that truly mattered. Sad.
but getting back to your basic point, with which i agree for the most part. the problem here is that a child was born. maybe it isn't edwards' child. but truly, he should have resolved that when the kid was born not now. and that has nothing to do with political calculations. and the reason he is getting such bad press and interest is that edwards more than almost any other politician on the scene today other than obama was selling a package deal with elizabeth, who has continued to champion health care causes. and don't underestimate the poignancy of her incurable cancer as a theme in this morality play. it's one thing to fool around on a healthy hillary it's quite another to do it to your sick wife.
I just wish the media would realize that he's not getting paid with tax payer money like the other politicians that were currently holding office. This story needs to die out already.
But the real issue isn't his infidelity, it's that he chose to run for president anyway. That is what has most people baffled.
Going to take a cold shower before turning on CNN for my 24 hour sanctimony.
If so, how are they having so many little republicans?
Some folks think their lack of a sex drive is proof that they have chosen not to have one, ergo they are not controlled by their sex drive. And isn't it funny how the strength of one's moral character is ALWAYS indirectly proportional to one's sex drive?
Good that morality is a zero-sum game. We should all give thanks to God that Edwards couldn't keep it zipped and confess that had his moral standards been higher, ours would have been necessarily lower.
In truth, no human being no matter their position is perfect, and these stupid people that like to turn these things into issues should realize this and stop feeding into utter ignorance of the masses.
Simplying it doesn't negate the fact that he lied, lied, lied, lied.
OH! I forgot this, his wife's cancer was in remission........Yippee for Edwards!
We already have enough liars in Washington as it is!
Wisdom and morality intersect far less than most want to believe, and a holier-than-thou, judgemental attitude doesn't fall under the heading of wisdom, IMNSHO.
I hope Elizabeth Edwards is more forgiving than the American electorate and that the Edwards' marriage, as you say, endures because they seem to be a very loving, caring couple in every other respect.
At the moment 2 of the top 3 Democratic candidates are associated with famously publicized affairs, my governor was caught with a prostitute his daughter's age, and John McCain just offered up his wife in a topless beauty pageant at a rally that has domestic abuse workers on call round the clock. What do I get from all of this? That our culture treats women like s***, whether they're being publicly cheated on, sexualized at a biker fest, or told by male legislators they can't make their own reproductive decisions and their daughters should be taught abstinence-only and make purity pledges to their fathers.
It's not our business and it has nothing to do with a politician's ability to govern, but publicly touting it as "natural" will feel like a slap in the face to many who've had to go through such a thing.
I wish John Edwards has been man enough to leave it between them. Instead, he ran for president, lied to his own staff and created the media incident this has become. He is responsible for his own behavior and the consequence. What is worse, being puritanical or codependency?