All Fall Down

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.

Comments

[sdsteve]

His personal life is his, but anyone who has been on the national stage for as long as Edwards has should have known that you can't hide anything like this. For this reason he should not have declared for President. If his long shot candidacy would have been successful (Obama's was even a longer shot) he would've handed the White House to John McCain! THAT would've been unforgivable.

[Hufferton]

Mr. Pazienza,

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.

[berrycooda]

What does Christianity have to do with a man who has an affair when he is married....
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.

[cre8ivecurt]

Thanks Chez...well said. I'm always amazed at how scandalized Americans get over situations such as this. Like his infidelity to his wife negates everything else that is good about him. And we act like we have the Right to know every single detail - just so we can be shocked and disgusted because this is about SEX! We impeach a President because he lied about sex. But we can't seem to care enough to impeach a President whose lies have cost the lives of thousands of people.

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.

[jrterrier]

Take bill clinton off that lists. he survived because he was actually doing good. just like FDR. that in the end is the test on almost anything in life -- any mistake or flaw can be survived if your contributions exceed the negatives.

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.

[rebal7]

I understand that it is an easy thing for you to justify the fact that the Edwards' sexual desires are the reason, understandably, for his affair. Unfortunately, you seem to not know the nature of a healthy marriage. It is one built on compassion and trust; the sex is the fun part. Edwards blew the trust part - a HUGE mistake. For you to write this article about "understanding" as well as condoning Edwards' infidelity because he is "human" and, poor guy, cannot be expected to rise about his base desires, is short-sighted! It means that you do not seem to value how two people can GROW in love and companionship; yes it takes much work, but that good relationships with the same person get better! Wha....???? Yes, better. Sex can get better; yes better. I think your article is superficial and does not illuminate nor understand the complexities of a healthy relationship- it basically says that a happy healthy relationship is all about sex. You sound young and narcissistic, just like Edwards. Maybe it is time to become mature and think through things. Or, maybe, get a deep, good relationship. It feels real good after 30 years. Or, I suppose you could spend the time enjoying your base desires. Just like the animals. I think we have heard enough about men's empty fun. Woman get HURT.

[w8aminute]

Don't forget to add David Vitter and Rudy Guiliani (and their spouses) to the list...
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.

[rationalthought1]

This post states the obvious - except Edwards had no right to put the entire election at risk. You know, its quite possible he and Hunter might have actually fallen in love (or at least felt they had). Which, of course, is no reason to put all of our futures on the line knowing that in the political REALI TY in which we live, this could sink the dems and hand the White House over to the repubs for another 4 nightmarish years. Of course, we're all humans - but that doesn't mean you have to run for president. He should have held back - his wife had cancer, after all. He could have pursued it in the future.

[itmaybetoolate]

I don't care who John Edwards sleeps with. What worries me is that he ran for the nomination knowing this was lurking in the background. That was a calculated and deliberate decision which could have lost us the election. He had to know that this would come out, especially is he had won the nomination. Unless, of course, he never set out to win the nomination, and, if that is the case, he misled his supporters.

[PumaAnn]

Edwards didn't just have a quick fling. That's pretty obviously spin going on now to cover up just how raunchy this deal was.

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.

[MzTexas]

The infidelity is between him and Elizabeth . . . the lies were told to the American public by a person who was running for President. He, by lying, caused his own problems with the American public. I would have much more respect for him if he had simply answered the question with, "Elizabeth and I have had some rough patches in our marriage over the past few years. She is aware of my infidelity, has forgiven me and we are working on our personal situation." But, out of political expediency, he lied and he lied repeatedly.

[luckismine]

Thank you for your comments. I was beginning to think that John Edwards and I were the only two Americans afflicted with sexual desire.

Going to take a cold shower before turning on CNN for my 24 hour sanctimony.

[meanguy]

desire is one thing...a lack of morals, not to mention a lack of respect for one's spouse, is another thing entirely

[PatrickforO]

This is because the Christian right is so uptight about sex. But the seven deadly sins are pride, rage, sloth, lust, envy, greed and gluttony. When's the last time any of you heard any of these so-called family values groups railing against how we've let the pride of false patriotism get us into a war with Iraq because our president's rage against its leader was based on the envy of his oil? And what about the greed of the oil companies, and the military industrial complex. Remember it? Not saying Edwards did a great thing here, but all this coverage isn't warranted. His wife's cancer has come back. Let them be.

[FirstShirt]

"This is because the Christian right is so uptight about sex. "

If so, how are they having so many little republicans?

[ignrnthllblly]

Gosh, why don't we just include an affidavit for all wannabe candidates to swear to their moral perfection, according to each and every one of our individual standards? Then when they demonstrate that they've lied about that too, we'll all be so much better off because of our increased moral stature.

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.

[meanguy]

what you're forgetting is that it's not MY moral standards that edwards couldn't meet, but his own...and inasmuch as he said that morality is important, his hypocrisy is indicative of his lack of character-this is a man that people were talking up as a possible VP or AG selection...

[kinnycut]

The media makes way to much of these things period. These are human frailities that everyone is subject to. Some times people make the correct decision, and some times they do not, but the media circus has no right to call a persons entire integrity into question just because of one trist in thirty-years of marriage. Few people, men and women could stand up to that scrutiny these people have to endure on a daily basis. As far as the lie itself, Edwards had every reason not to tell the truth, but in the real world when it comes to these things your career is the least of your worries. The thing Edwards feared the most is what every man fears and that is how do you tell this to your wife of thirty-years, and your children. How do answer their big question. What do you say when they ask Why? There never is a good answer to this question. All you can say is I screwed up bad, and now you know I am not perfect.
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.

[PatA]

If he did what everyone else did, why are there so many enduring marriages where neither spouse cheats? It happens.
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!

[RoloTomassi]

No hesitance to cast that stone I see....but are you really that sure of yourself and those around you?

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.

[justobserve]

Afraid of judging other people's actions? That's why they don't feel ashame of doing such betrayal to their families. In fact, the Clintons benefitted a great deal from Bill's actions. Hill got what she wanted: help to get the presidency and both Bill and Hill got millions from book sales.

[meanguy]

edwards made a big deal of morality, including marital fidelity, in at least one public speech...is it no big deal that he be held to the same standard he publicly esposed? as for my wife and myself, yes-i AM really that sure of our fidelity-believe it or not, 'forsaking all others' DOES mean something to some of us-vows are vows, a promise made is a promise kept-

[mosh]

Why are there so many ugly divorces?

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.

[bellecloche]

This is between John and Elizabeth, absolutely. Our political culture is ridiculously puritan, absolutely. Every couple has marital problems in varying degrees, absolutely. But I don't buy the "Hey, everyone does it" spiel as an argument. Men cheat and women cheat, but in my lifetime it's mostly been men cheating in politics, and while they are the main catalysts of their wives' public humiliation, I'm sure the wives aren't thrilled by the claim that what's happened to them is so pervasive that no one should care.

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.

[FirstShirt]

"This is between John and Elizabeth, absolutely. Our political culture is ridiculously puritan, absolutely. "

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?

[NoSillyName]

Very good points, BelleC. Perhaps a bit too rational for those who place sex above everything else in life.