Catching the Wrong John: Why Are the Media Talking about John Edwards' Infidelity If They Aren't Going to Talk about John McCain's?

My first thought upon hearing Friday's "big news" on all the cable stations -- straight from the pages of the nation's leading investigative newspaper, the National Enquirer -- that John Edwards had been caught with his trousers down, was, "Oh, no, what if this cuts into the story of that little girl who disappeared whose mother hasn't seemed to figure out that someone is recording her jailhouse telephone conversations and putting them on the news! How will I ever get the news I need tonight?"

Let me be clear. I'm not a proponent of infidelity. As a clinical psychologist, I've seen its corrosive impact on many a marriage. But Edwards isn't running for president anymore. He's not running for Pope as far as I know. And he's not even a sitting elected official. To watch Larry King interview two "journalists" from the National Enquirer on his show Friday night was as pathetic as seeing the Edwards affair on the front page of the New York Times. If the media ran stories on every former or sitting elected official who ever had an affair, those stories alone would fill the news or sports sections of every newspaper (depending on how they classified them).

Rationalizations for Running the Story

I know what you're going to say. "He was running for president, and had he won the nomination, imagine what that would have done." True enough, and for that reason perhaps the story merited a migration from the Enquirer to the coupon section of the print edition of some newspaper somewhere. What he did was unbelievably reckless for a man who was running for president and could have put the Democratic Party in real peril had he won the nomination. And to paraphrase another Democrat who wedded restlessness with recklessness, Edwards should not have had financial relations with that woman, his videographer. All fair criticisms.

But Edwards didn't win the nomination. Personally, my primary feeling is sadness for the Edwards family. This would be tremendously difficult in private. It must be excruciating in public.

But this is an issue of character, you say. After all, he lied. But every affair involves deceit, and denying the affair is what people confronted with infidelity usually do, as they see their marriages potentially crumbling before their eyes -- and that's without the glare of the camera. It's not clear in this case (as in other such high-profile cases) to what extent Edwards' original denials were primarily motivated by self-protection, protection of his wife and family from humiliation, protection of his gonads from an angry spouse, or, most likely, all of the above.

So is lying about an affair a good predictor of other forms of deceit and corruption in office? By all reports George W. Bush has been faithful to his wife. If only he had been so faithful to the Constitution, the American people, and those silly little things we have in this country called laws.

But Edwards' infidelity was even worse because of the circumstances. His wife was ill. How could he do such a thing?

That's a compelling question, and those without sins should certainly cast their stones. An equally compelling question, however, is how the media humiliating his wife publicly in the final years of her life at this point serves any purpose than selling papers and boosting ratings. The man's children are already dealing with their mother dying. Do they really need to know -- and to know that everyone who ever meets them will know -- this level of private detail about their father's indiscretion?

As someone who has practiced psychotherapy for 25 years, there's one thing I've learned: that it's a lot easier to judge than to withhold judgment. Life isn't easy. Most people try to live good and decent lives, and most people fail at many points along the way. If fidelity over decades of marriage were so easy, I suspect more people would practice it.

What's Sauce for the Donkey out of the Race is Sauce for the Elephant in the Room

But this media "affair" raises a more serious question. If John Edwards' infidelity is news, and he's not a candidate for anything, why isn't John McCain's? He reportedly had numerous affairs in the years after returning home from Vietnam to a beautiful wife who had been disfigured in a car accident, and ultimately, by his own reports, he zeroed in like a laser on beautiful a 25-year-old heiress upon meeting her one evening in 1979 while he was still married, promptly lied to her about his age, and almost as promptly left his wife for her. We all extol John McCain for enduring 5 years of extreme hardship in Vietnam. But aren't his first wife's circumstances much like Elizabeth Edwards'? After all, the first Mrs. McCain waited in agony (and presumably fidelity) during those five long years for her beloved husband to return from Vietnam, raising their children while he was away and undergoing dozens of painful operations herself, only to be repaid by a philandering husband who ultimately left her for a younger woman.

Now personally, I don't think anybody's sex life has any bearing on a campaign, except to the extent that the candidate runs as a hypocrite, extolling family values, fighting gays while fighting his own gay demons, etc. But John McCain is increasingly making this campaign about character, and his actions over many years suggest some worrisome patterns that fly in the face of the entire story he tells about himself. Setting aside his cheating on his first wife, what about his attending to something other than the people's business as a member of the Keating Five (and ultimately contributing to a bailout that cost middle class American taxpayers the equivalent of nearly half a trillion in 2008 tax dollars -- imagine the middle class tax break we could offer if we weren't still paying off the principal and debt on that boondoggle); or hiring the most dishonest, amoral campaign team money could buy in 2008; or generating one fabricated or grossly misleading charge after another against Obama in the last three weeks (as in his sleazy new tax ad where, for example, he says Obama would raise taxes on small businesses when Obama has never proposed anything of the sort)? Like George W. Bush, he doesn't seem like a man who once was lost but now is found. He seems more like a man's whose principles are soluble in self-interest.

The Obama campaign seems reluctant to attack McCain even when the attacks are both true and on point, such as his standing on every side of virtually every issue, so they certainly won't go after his private life. Nor would I recommend they do so, unless McCain continues to raise issues about Obama's character, in which case Obama might want to take a public shot over the bow to let McCain know that if he wants to make this election a referendum on character, he can do that, but it would not be in his interest. McCain would get the message, and I suspect he would call off the dogs. Similarly, if McCain tries to mobilize anti-gay sentiment, or (more likely, since I suspect he's more libertarian at heart) colludes with those who do, it would be perfectly fair to ask him where in the Bible God prioritizes homosexuality as a sin over adultery, since there's a Commandment about one but not the other, and adultery is a far greater threat to the institution of marriage than gay people entering into committed relationships (McCain's first marriage being Exhibit A).

Washing the Media's Mouth Out with Soap

In any case, the media either need to be an equal-opportunity Enquirer -- in which case if John Edwards' infidelity deserves three or four days of media attention when he's not even running, McCain's deserves three or four weeks -- or they need to grow up. Personally, I vote for the latter. If the media decide that McCain's sexual transgressions, like virtually all Republican transgressions as long as they're heterosexual, are unworthy of media attention, they should do some serious soul searching about why they went after Edwards, and they should stop reporting on the sex lives of politicians in the future, whose personal foibles and frailties are none of our damned business.

And that leads to a final point. I have long thought that we need a watchdog on the watchdogs. Like most Americans, I watched in horror as the impeachment process was abused in 1998 with the complicity of a ratings-frenzied media that made a fortune turning the Congress into a reality show and the grand jury system into an adjunct to The People's Court. We now have a watchdog: the blogs. I suggest we use the blogosphere to teach journalists a lesson about privacy, humility, and humiliation, and put them on notice that if they continue to practice gutter journalism, bloggers will publish the same data kind of data on them that they publish on politicians. After all, journalists' objectivity is of the essence, and if they're purging their own sins by attacking them in others, the public has the right to know. And surely journalism requires the same level of honesty as public service.

So call it empathy training. My guess is that media enthusiasm for sex scandals would drop within days of the first report (replete with photos) on the sexual indiscretions of a television news anchor or reporter, and that the kind of rationalizations we have heard for two decades---"we had to cover it because the newspaper that brought you 'Woman Gives Birth to Four-Headed Reptile" was covering it -- would disappear as fast as you can say "zip it."

Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation," recently released in paperback with a new postscript on the 2008 election.

Comments

[JenniferInMO]

Well written, Dr. Drew! Thank your thorough and well-reasoned perspective. I have thought of all of the points you included in this article, unfortunately when I have tried to articulate them all that comes out are sounds of exaspiration, a few inarticulate stuttered words and a little spit. There is so much wrong with how this is being handled by the corporate media that I wouldn't even know where to start.

I also like your call to the blogosphere to get some dirt on those who make a living by throwing mud.

[mrsbee]

Believe it or not ..Alan Colmes on Foxnews challenged Hannity last night about this very subject and they had quite a dust up about it....I was totally surprised...I have written to all the pundits on TV and challenged them to go with this story in order for the McCain fiasco to come to the surface FINALLY
There are many younger voters who were too young 8 years ago to even learn about him and his sordid stuff...if we keep after this all the stuff that came out about him then will come out again...If Obama won't do it...somebody has to.

[MoeJava]

Too bad John Edwards doesnt ask John McCain - face to face - how they differ?
THAT would be a conversation I'd pay to witness at one of McCain's Town Hall Meetings.

[claudiam]

McSame is getting such a pass by the media. Why is that?

[Beka13]

The media isnt owned by radical left wing hippies?

[darker]

"Why Are the Media Talking about John Edwards' Infidelity If They Aren't Going to Talk about John McCain's?"

It's simple.

The Media is OWNED by REPUBLICAN CORPORATIONS whose Lobbyists
kissed up to MCCAIN for many years. MCCAIN is their man; he gives them all they want.

To bad that Americans' attention span is about a HALF SECOND LONG. Do they care now about "President Bush, the economy, gas prices, Iraq, Afghanistan "?
NOT.

What the average American HYSTERICAL, emotional VOTER cares about is what's been tossed to him/her by Media to titillate, amuse, mock, demean, smear, shock, ANY NEGATIVITY WORKS WELL.

American voters absolutely refuse to NOT be manipulated. They want a extreme blood sport in elections, whether it makes any sense or not. And whether or not THEY--THE VOTERS--are the LOSERS.

[Grannysue]

What about the affair McCain had with the lobbyist, that wasn't old news it just got covered up!

[heywhat]

While both John Edwards and John McCain may be a lot less than gentlemanly (among other things) for having affairs when their wives were not well, I don't think that affairs when someone is not in public office are anyone's business except the parties involved. In fact, even affairs that a person may have when in office are no one's business unless they involve malfeasance in some way. It is now beginning to appear that campaign funds may have been used to pay for some of the expenses of the woman involved with JE and that she was hired by the campaign while having the affair with JE. If true, these matters are within bounds for investigation.

On the whole though, I would imagine that quite a few of those who are so offended by JE and JMc have a few things of their own to answer for in their private lives. Ah, there's the key though - "private" -lives.

http://strictlyanecdotal.com

[watchandwait]

A person's sex life does have a bearing on their political existence if they intend to espouse a particular notion regarding family/social values and expect to maintain credibility. I don't see how a person taking part in an affair can expect to take a negative stance against issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc. yet proudly champion "family values" talking points without being considered a hypocrite for doing so - especially if the affair is homosexual or a heterosexual and the chances of the woman getting pregnant are high. Though JE is no longer an elected official, criticizing his assignation with Hunter can be construed as a warning to other elected officials who may want to share their ideology regarding the above referenced issues when the lives they are leading in the shadows suggest that ideology and actions are incongruous. That's why Spitzer was brought down - you can't rail against an activity in an official capacity and expect to never get caught (or if caught, to maintain credibility once you've been brought low by the revelation).

[danod]

It's interesting that these scenarios are surrounding Barack again. They helped him twice in 2004, helping to land him on the national stage and grab everyone's attention in time for this historic run. It's wasn't infidelity that brought down Barack's opponents that year, but marital problems nonetheless. The similarity is the sleaziness of the medium (that year it was Chicago Tribune) that pushed for this story. They pushed in court for documents to be unsealed in divorce cases of one of Barack's main primary rivals (Blair Hull) and the winner of the Republican primary, Jack Ryan. In Hull's case, the threatened his wife after she tried to kick his face. In Ryan's case, he creeped out his wife because of the phreaky stuff he asked her to do. In both cases, the divorced couples fought against the Tribune Co. in court to keep the documents sealed. Apparently, the court agreed that people running for public office have no expectation of privacy.
Hull lost to Obama in the primary. Ryan was pressured to quit. The Illinois Republicans then recruited Alan Keyes to run against Obama. Upon hearing the narrow-minded view of Keyes, many state Republican leaders loudly complained about being stuck with him as a candidate and proclaimed that the state would be better off without him as a senator.


So here we are again...Obama in the middle, with a clown the the left of him and a joker to the right.

and where's the Tribune Co.?

[RAStewart]

"and where's the Tribune Co.?"

That, at least, I can answer: Busily drafting their endorsement of McCain.

[foxfan]

McCain's affair is old news that everone seems to know about. Edwards tried to hide his affair while running for President. Why is it when a dem is caught doing something the first response is to point at the reps? Try defending your own guy first.

[dawlishgal]

Old news that the "family-values" touting Republicans don't care a whit about when one of their guys fools around and exploits a much younger woman and leaves behind a crippled wife who waited 5 years for him to get out of a prison camp (after turning down an offer from his captors to release him).

Can you spell "H Y P O C R I S Y?" It seems to me that Democrats are just as disappointed in Edwards and in his behavior as Republicans are oblivious to the morality-breaches of their guys. Democrats are not in the biz of defending the indefensible. Your own guys are, provided it is their guys who are involved in the misbehaviors.

If you insist, let me try to defend Edwards.... here goes: at least he didn't marry his mistress while the ink was still wet on the divorce papers. In fact, Edwards is still with his wife (as far as we know).

Interesting advlice to defend "our own guy." Do you want EVERYBODY to adopt the elastic and elusive moral standards applied by conservatives to everybody BUT THEIR OWN? Political expediency at its Bushrovian best (or worst, depending on one's point of view).

[foxfan]

Just for the record, I do not approve of either of them. As to your remarks regarding my advice, I just don't think a good defense for Edwards is to say, "well, McCain did it" which is what this column sounds like. I do agree though, that McCain's affair should probably openly discussed, at least as a matter of character.

[CRayD11]

Thanks foxfan and dawlishgal for at least as an interesting and reasonable exchange as can be seen the major media these days.
Well... except for the one between "Hannity & Colmes" on McCain's infidelities in his first marriage - following her serious auto accident, no less! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/hannity-freaks-on-mccain_b_118805.html)

[lysistrata]

So McCain is old news, but it is still the same old lousy character news. And it is still the so-called family value party.

[foxfan]

I will agree with that for sure.

[JohnUmana]

Has Senator McCain not done the same thing that former Senator Edwards is criticised for -- lying about a romantic affair in order to protect his candidacy? Whether an adult chooses to have a romantic relationship with another may or may not be not the proper subject of media scrutiny in a presidential campaign. But lying about the relationship certainly is the proper subject of media scrutiny, because it makes the man out to be a liar, something we've already seen too much of in the White House. It is better to say nothing than for a candidate to lie through his teeth to the American people. On February 21, 2008, the New York Times published a story asserting that during Senator McCain"s first run for the White House eight years ago, some of his top advisers became "convinced" he was having a "romantic" relationship with a female lobbyist (whose high-profile clients the Arizona senator was helping), and intervened to protect the candidate from himself. Senator McCain and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, both vehemently denied that they had the affair. The Senator described her as a mere "friend." This was hardly the truth. He was protecting his run for the White House. How is this any different from what Edwards did?

[VivaZapata]

This came up on CNN the other day, and the Republican mouthpiece's unchallenged response was that the McCain info was old news and that McCain's first wife was jiggy with it all. This is lame on several fronts, but mostly for two reasons:
1. Though old news, McCain's erotic tale was never plastered all over the place like Edward's.
2. Elizabeth Edwards told everyone to mind their own business.
Somewhat irrelevant yet interesting: the Republican mouthpiece had this grating, ridiculing laugh whenever her democratic counterpart tried to speak.

[ktodack]

McCain's infidelity might be old news but I bet if you polled most Americans you wouldn't find more then 10% who know about it and many people would say it never happened. The GOP has been very good at keeping the whole thing out of site and shaping the news.

In any case I'm frustrated that Senator Obama's campaign hasn't put Drew Westen in charge of TV ads-- this guy knows what he doing-- he attacks with the truth. This is someone that can turn the poll numbers up an additional 10% within a month. Come on Obama campaign people listen to this guy.

[MyGuyO]

Yes, yes, yes. Senator John McCain must have ALL his infidilities brought out in the open. This man is running for the President of the U.S. and nary w/the MSM say anything derogatory about him. This is unbelievable.

[janvoght]

Everyone wants to avoid looking like the "ruthless mean guy" that criticizing a POW could bring. john mc cain has been involved in the ruthless behavior of deliberate deception in the case of the Navajo tribe in his home state of arizona (where he moved the tribe off of their land to a toxic waste dump site in favor of coal), in the ruthless cheapening of his own wife's loyalty while he was in Viet Nam, in the pandering behavior of going against his own bills to win votes, in joining forces with the likes of the criminal "above the law" character of GW Bush, and of attempting to fool the American people into thinking he is an expert on foreign policy (because he voted for a surge of a war that should not have been started by his party).
I FOR ONE WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS SMOKE AND MIRRORS FROM BIG MONEY...AMERICA WILL NOT SURVIVE 4 MORE YRS OF THESE POLICIES.
obama '08

[tbirdalum]

Way to go, jv and why does everyone accept his POW credentials at face value?

[bmaggiemay]

At least John Edwards has stood beside Elizabeth and I believes he truly loves her but made a huge mistake.....John McCain deserted his wife and allow Ross Perot to paid for her huge medical bills....what kind of a man allow another man to pay for his own wife's medical bills....John McCain is a snake in the grass. He didn't even have the guts to thank Ross Perot for doing this....how can the man even hold up his head...he should be ashamed...all of Washington knew that he deserted her and Ross stepped up to save the day. With the morals of a snake people actually want this man of no honor to be the president.....it's just priceless.

[Edwestern]

Edwards' story is NEWS.

McCain's story is sour grapes at this stage.

[magen]

The sexual indiscretions of somebody who isn't a candidate and isn't in office are NEWS to you?

Yet the sexual indiscretions of somebody who IS a candidate and IS in office AREN'T because they happened a long time ago?

The Edwards affair is bad. Very, very bad. But we should just (ahem) forget about McSame's. Old news, move along, nothing to see here, huh?

[dawlishgal]

Sour grapes to whom....people who would like to like to able to dump a wife who has gained some weight after being severely injured in a car accident? Dump her after she had waited 5 or 6 years for them to get out of a prison camp? Dump her in order to marry a blonde young enough to be their daughter, and get a rich father-in-law to boot,a guy who could bankroll their entry into politics? Guys who are stuck with fat crippled wives because they haven' t been able to bedazzle a rich young woman with tales of military heroism that leave out the capitulation to the enemy part?

At least Edwards had nothing to gain financially or politically from his philandering with penniless woman pushing 40..

[AlindaFaye2000]

No it isn't just sour grapes. McCain is trying to make character an issue. He should start with himself. Talk about his infidelities. MSM should talk about it, too. But, they are giving him a free pass. The only one I heard talk about it is Rachel Maddow.