So John Edwards Had An Affair -- Grow Up, Adultery Is Not a Political Issue.

And so America has finally stumbled on a political issue of real significance. No, not the trifling matters of economic collapse, global warming, or two wars. No -- the issue of the day is John Edwards' dick.

Since Elizabeth Edwards published a book about the supremely trivial fact that her husband had an affair, the cable shows have been endlessly debating the "issue" once again.

Memo to America: Grow. Up. Have you forgotten the lesson of Lewinsky so soon? While al-Qa'ida plotted a murderous attack on the US, the twice-elected president was busy being impeached over a few bouts of consensual oral sex. It meant nothing. It was nothing. But it skewed your politics for years.

If you think a politician's fidelity to his wife reveals his character, then you believe Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther King were deeply immoral people, while Adolf Hitler and Dick Cheney are moral paradigms.

In the long term, a fixation on politicians' penises reinforces existing power structures, because the implicit message of sex stories is simple and reactionary. Politics in the scandal-hungry world isn't about ideas or redistributing wealth and power. It's about who can control their sexual urges best while running a political show which just happens to be rigged in favour of the rich.

Does anyone remember now that John Edwards was the most eloquent campaigner against poverty and corruption in mainstream politics for a generation? You might remember him as the plastic vice-presidential candidate standing at John Kerry's wooden side in 2004. Back then, he offered anodyne Clintonian soundbites and centrist platitudes but losing to Bush yet again did something strange to him. It turned him into an angry whistle-blower, exposing the corruption consuming both of Washington's parties.

He explained: "I have seen the seamy underbelly of what happens in Washington every day. If you're Exxon Mobil and you want to influence what's happening with the government, you go and hire one of these big lobbying firms. This is what you find. About half the lobbyists are Republicans, and about half the lobbyists are Democrats. If the Republicans are in power, the Republican lobbyists take the lead, passing the money around. If the Democrats are in power, the Democratic lobbyists take the lead. They're pushing the same agenda for the same companies. There's no difference." He announced that "the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken" - and proposed hard ways to change. A smattering have been picked up by President Obama, and many more need to be.

Is all that wiped out by a brief and meaningless ejaculation?

But even if Edwards had a foul agenda - even if he was Rush Limbaugh - adultery would be lousy grounds to drum him out of public life. It. Means. Nothing

It doesn't have to be this way. Continental Europe has a mature model where politicians' affairs are considered irrelevant. The idea a French President would be debarred from office for sleeping with somebody other than his wife is preposterous.

Talking about "a right to know" about affairs is silly. We no more have a right to know about Edward's sex life than we have a right to know what he looks like naked.

This isn't about whether you like John Edwards or not. It's about a choice we all have to make: do we want our political debate to be conducted at the level of the National Enquirer, or does a serious democracy deserve better?

Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper. To read more of his articles, click here.

Comments

[CyberCitizen]

Wholeheartedly agree. Keep your eye on the peas of health care, jobs, the environment, etc., not the shells of celebrity activities as manipulated by the media.

[JoAnnCr]

As an independent blogger for John Edwards's issues, I wholeheartedly agree.

We need the man.

The wimp that we saw in Obama before John Edwards challenged him is the wimp we see now.

John Edwards will put the whole group of flaky politicians to shame. He did it in the campaign and if he rises again, we will have a better, more intelligent plan.

Only then will we finally get something done that matters!

[ProgressiveVoice]

It would be a lot easier to swallow any of the arguments against Edwards, here and in other forums, if there was a fraction of the outrage against so-called "family values" defenders like McCain, Thompson, Limbaugh, etc - Republican politicians and pundits with serial trophy wives and families.

Married people cheat. Rich and/or powerful people get many more opportunities to do so.

[JimmyTee]

If it was no big deal, genius, why did Edwards go to such ridiculous lengths and considerable expense to cover it up?

[PhilipB]

Dear Johann Hari,
I read your article and the comments.
You know, Johann, I think you are missing something.
Edwards was running for president of the United States when he was having his affair, flying first class giving a speech about poverty and then hopping on the plane paid by supporters to continue his affair.
I mean, it is so icky.
His wife was dying.
Edwards was not only unfaithful to his family, but to those who supported him. Edwards infidelity was to the whole Democratic party who worked so hard to get a Democrat elected after Bush.
Hey, If Edwards wants to be "narcissitic" as he said in a televised confessional, then fine, but do not do it when the stakes for a Demorcratic president was so high for ME.

[Heartlander]

Thank you, Mr. Hari, for this piece. You asked if anyone remembered John Edwards as the most articulate campaigner against poverty and corruption in mainstream politics that we have had in a generation. To this question I answer a resounding "Yes", and I am not alone in remembering that John Edwards set the bar high for other Democratic politicians by campaiging on important issues and by putting forth specific solutions to the problems that are now being grappled with by the current Administration .
John Edwards did not campaign on "family values" as many seem to assert. He campaigned on issues like poverty and the growing economic divide in America, the need for clean energy and ways to accomplish the revolution in energy that we need in America, ways to safegaurd the environment, ways to achieve justice in healthcare in America, and so forth. He was the most progressive of the Democrats in the race, bar Kucinich, and I think that a lot of people were not able to accept his progressive agenda. Now an attempt is being made to recast him as a family values candidate who did not live up to his own agenda. This attempt is false but a lot of people will buy into it. So be it, but this is sort of a time-wsting activity. The irelevant ssue is how well President Obama will do in managing the issues that we are facing. Time will tell.

[Areyoume2]

People who are unhappy in their marriage: break up. Choosing to remain within it, while cheating, is a deception. It gives one party the unfair advantage of being able to engage in 'party' sex, which means getting the lights low, the champagne to flow and the nighties to show. Elizabeth might well have wanted some fun in her romantic life too, after being married the same number of monotonous years to the boring (albeit pretty) John. So unless both parties in a marriage are invited to take a 'romance break' to recharge their love buttons and re-engage their sleeping sexual egos, it's unfair.

It's about character, and what gets exposed inside the bedroom surely reflects what a candidate will do outside the bedroom. John, playing the game while his wife was ill, seems (to me) further evidence that the man is weak and shallow. (In fact, the Bill-Hill thing didn't seem nearly as bad, as I viewed him as a sex addict who 'behaved' for the better part of the 8 years ... it's hard. I am also amazed that Bush didn't come toppling down the White House steps after a binge one night. Eight Years is a Long Time to remain 'good'. But, to fall off the wagon - as Edwards did - while walking up the campaign trail - showed him to be a WEAKLING !! (in my book)

[endbush]

The time that you're running for President is like the early stages of a dating someone--you're on your best behavior. If you get elected, prove to be a great President, then it turns out you're cheating on your spouse, the public will cut you some slack. But if you're still campaigning and already cheating, that reveals a serious lack of judgment bordering on pathological narcissism (and he is a self-described narcissist). Populism can be snake oil just as much as patriotism can be and looking at his record there was no reason to believe that he was sincere. And if he was sincere then the other conclusion we could draw from his record was that he would give up his principles if he felt it would help him politically.

If someone I had just met and was dating was already lying to me I wouldn't stick around to see what else that person was hiding.

[Cherubim]

Endbush, you forgot to mention that
John and Elizabeth have been married for around 32 years; and
as a married couple they have given birth to four lovely children.
Hey, I just thought I would throw that in.

[Glooscap]

Unlike the electoral systems in European nations, the American President is chosen on the basis of personal popularity, values, and perceived character which are typically exemplified by the family and lifestyle of the candidates. One cannot compare the small cohesive electorates of many European nations with the vastness and diversity of the American nation. Since many European leaders are chosen by members of their party rather than each voter, the public is much more detached.

As long as American politicians exhibit such dubious taste in extramarital relationships, and inflict pain on family, friends, and supporters through the inevitable deceit, then it is unlikely that voters will accept them as persons of Presidential caliber. I doubt that women voters anywhere would accept such flawed leaders.

[Cherubim]

I think it is time to give John Edwards a break.

[quadman]

There is a reason why adultery is an issue for many Americans. Put simply, it is DECEPTION. He was giving the appearance that his marriage was an ideal, that he was purely committed to his wife as she is battling cancer. If you are willing to lie to and deceive the one you have committed yourself to for your own self gratification, then what is going to make most people believe that you WON'T lie to them? This goes to the core of character. Character is who you are when nobody is watching you. Image is what everybody sees. For most everybody these two are different to varying degrees. For most the difference has more to do with personal insecurities and not ambition. John Edwards put on a big show and then was shown to be a hypocrite. Edwards, through his adultery, demonstrated his total lack of integrity. His megalomania was thankfully exposed.

[Cherubim]

DECEPTION is a man named Dick Chaney.

[naschkatze]

It's the lying, not the adultery. John Edwards is the one who should have acted like an adult. If he had won the nomination, that lie would have sunk our chances of winning. Likewise, I don't care what Clinton did with Monica (except I'd have rather they were in his private quarters and not the Oval Office), but Clinton's perjuring himself, a president, rather than admit the silly truth is what galled me. Adultery itself probably could be looked at as a lie, the lying or keeping the truth from the spouse, but it is a private affair. Not so when you do it to the public or under oath.

[ProudLiberalDan]

I could care less if any politician has sex with any other consenting adult.

In fact, I'm glad. People with abundant sex lives have less neurosis than those who are sexually frustrated.

I do however care about a President and administration that lied the nation into war against the wrong country and got away with it. That is far more immoral by any standard of decency.

That the "religious" "right" and the conservative movement had nothing to say when Bush/Cheney lied the nation into war, but crusaded for Clinton's impeachment because he lied about cheating on his wife. I guess it is okay with them for a politician to lie in office provided he's helping to inflict your religious dogmas on other people.

Scratch a social conservative and you'll almost always find a hypocrite underneath.

[mydwyf]

You are assuming that 'people with abundant sex lives' are not 'sexually frustrated'.
That is not necessarily the case ! Compulsive sexual behavior is a symptom of extreme frustration.

And from a medical perspective, what about the act of potentially exposing a spouse with a seriously compromised immune system to STD's including HIV ? Especially since she is engaged in raising your children, which is a fairly demanding job description and a task you are relying on her to do, in spite of her health issues. THAT should constitute criminal behavior, and it would in a world where women are not still so disenfranchised. (AIDS is now the number one killer of AA women in their prime childbearing years, and they are most certainly not giving it to each other. When a man ruins his family's health in such a deceptive and egregious way, he should be prosecuted).

[bedfordny]

Agreed. But in the political arena of today, there is unfortunately the standard of morality that people demand from others but excuse for themselves. That is the nature of the political beast and politicians know that going in. Moral indignation over Edwards infidelity aside, if the affair was not uncovered and he did become president, that would have left him open to many unfortunate scenarios that could have compromised his judgment such as covering up a continuing affair or blackmail resulting from it. I totally agree that what Bush/Cheney did was morally reprehensible and criminal as well.

[JohnnyNutz]

His sex life shouldn't matter for politics...it is his choice if he wants to disrespect his family like that and he accepts the consequences when he decides to rail the other woman. The fact he lies about it IS a problem for politics. John Edwards = liar. That is not cool.

[LMPE]

There's something here. Kennedy, Clinton and Edwards had affairs. Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes didn't. Could it have something to do with the fact that the latter weren't particularly desirable?

[wgsalter]

You mean like the sexpots Dwight Eisenhower (Kay Summersby) and crippled FDR (Lucy Rutheford)? And as for Reagan, WHATEVER you think of his policies and politics, he was a Hollywood idol and extremely handsome in his youth. Indeed, as he is the only divorced president, we can be pretty sure that he did just fine in that department, time was.

Maybe adultery is not politically relevant, seeing all the names listed here. But to campaign on the premise of your dedication to your dying wife, and then to be carrying on a torrid affair, is really, really tacky - and it's fair for the electorate to read into that something about a person's emotional maturity.

Oh, and Barack is very attractive, but by all accounts faithful, so maybe is really is something about the man rather than just his looks - I mean, even Kissinger has a woman who loves him...

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

I'm torn on this issue...

On one hand I thoroughly believe that monogamy doesn't work. It's a religious ideology that's been imposed on humanity w/out regards to our arbitrary genetic make-up.

On the other hand, if you're dumb enough to stand in a church and vow to uphold it, then you should be taken at your word.

In the end it doesn't change my view of John Edwards one bit - or any other man who answered the call of his genes. I know that the vast majority of men who try to be monogamous either live repressed lives or secret ones.