In Defense of Elizabeth Edwards and Other Enablers [Updated]

This past Sunday, Sally Quinn wrote a thought provoking Washington Post column about Elizabeth Edwards that got many of my friends talking. She took a slightly different tack than much of the other media coverage has taken. In the outcry about John Edward's revelations, she pointed one of her fingers at Elizabeth Edwards, as an enabling wife. In my humble opinion, there are arguably many ways to examine this kind of a news story. There are so many angles in the prism from which to view it; who is at fault, who did what to whom, who is lying and when did they lie. In short -- the world has always been and is full of human frailty. But when someone is running for public office, it does require a stronger microscope.

Frankly, I was heartened that the Saturday morning after Edward's admission, the Today Show ratings handily beat their competition with their exclusive Olympics coverage. I thought this augured well for America. A splash of international sports competition in China was far more captivating to the average American viewer than the same tawdry political story of the lying, cheating, son of a bitch with the blonde permed floozy. "Oh, another page out of the Gary Hart Monkey Business book," yawned my sister. Perhaps, as citizens, we have become more like the French when it comes to expectations for our political leaders; a dalliance here, a blow job there, a call girl in the hotel room or the swelling belly housing a love child tucked away in a penthouse suite. Oh, that. Yawn.

Before I begin my defense of enablers, let me make one thing clear. It's entirely possible that I may be the biggest patsy alive. I'd like to believe my husband has been honest with me all of these years. And perhaps, at this very moment, he's speed dialing some stripper from the Badda Bing Club, or getting ready for a nooner in between bites of his sandwich at a no-tell motel. If so, I suppose that would make me an enabler too.

When most of us enter marriage we base our union on one big important thing -- trust. When we take those vows, be they the antiquated ones "honor and obey" or some groovy updated version "we will always listen to one another's point of view," we spouses mostly jumped in believing we would trust the other person to hold up their end of the bargain. Unless, of course, one is marrying someone with a checkered past; a tattooed Tommy Lee of the rock world, or Elizabeth Taylor, for example, someone for whom commitment and vows seem.... perhaps a bit more elastic.

So if Elizabeth Edwards had niggling doubts somewhere in the past, if she and her husband talked it over and he assured her he was telling the truth, well, somewhere in there the trust factor had to come into play. Sometimes because we do love, we fill in trust in places our spouse may not deserve. Even when our heads are telling us not to, our hearts create the trust bridge. I want to believe my husband does love me when he tells me so. And I don't need to go looking for trouble until I begin to smell something that might stink like fish.

Is it truly possible to recognize all of the dangers, the warning signs lying out there in wait for us during one lifetime? That inability to always navigate correctly, to hope, perhaps, for the best in our marriages, is what makes us human. Presumably it's what keeps people like Elizabeth Taylor going back to the well each time, in hopes that she will truly find her Prince Charming. For those of us weaned on Cinderella and Snow White, somewhere in our marrow, people like me still want to believe in true love. We still hope that it can conquer all, no matter what dings and dents life throws at us.

I cannot imagine anyone being willing to endure a marriage grounded in continual suspicion or assumption of wrongdoing. Yes, there is a fine line between gullibility and believing in someone, between stupidity and strapping on a set of blinders. But if I've asked my hubby the same question four different ways and he's answered it the same way every time -- I want to believe he is right. Who among us is licking their chops to call the private investigator when life appears to be moving in the right direction? Who sits, daily vigilant for a sign of transgression, for a hair or two on the forearm to stand on end, to feel that "sixth sense." Who aches to sit outside a honky tonk bar in a trench coat with binoculars? Who invests in a home lie detector set just to keep "handy" by the bed? Only the miserable I suppose.

It's often said that the only people who really know what goes on in a marriage are the two who are in it. I know that I pray never to be the wife who has resorted to checking her husband's Internet history for child porn sites or titillating emails, the 1950's equivalent of lipstick on the collar. How can we possibly know -- and why should we be entitled to -- the delicate dance between what a wife knows, what she wants to believe, what she does believe and what a husband tells or obfuscates when infidelity is involved.

And so I argue that we leave Elizabeth alone. Whether John Edwards was carrying on the affair in 2006 may very well be our business. Whether or not his wife knew in 2006 is firmly HER business. That belongs in the category marked "inner workings of a marriage." She was not the one running for public office, she was doing what strong women like Silda Wall Spitzer, Cynthia McCain and countless other accomplished, well educated, dedicated mothers have done throughout history -- trusted their man, believed in him and supported his ambitions in numerous ways.

Like scores of public wives before her, she was no different than you or me. She wanted to believe that her marriage had what it took to go the long haul: that it could survive the unthinkable death of a child, a duel with cancer and then the heart-stopping news that the disease had returned in a more virulent form. And through all of that, I have to believe that what didn't kill them, made the good parts of their marriage stronger. And it set an admirable lesson for their children about life and perseverance, about strength and looking for silver linings while you stare down violent, black storm clouds. This is tough stuff. In the face of all of that "life-testing" can you imagine running an investigative behind-the-scenes check on your husband too -- just in case he was a philanderer?

And here is my other reason for defending enablers. The children. When backed into a corner, a mother lion will fight to the death to spare her cubs. It's programmed into human nature too. So whatever Elizabeth was doing, whenever she knew, whether or not she went on, with cancer, to campaign for her husband with this betrayal clasped in her breast -- whatever she did, you have to believe she was putting her kids first. And when you are the one left holding the bag of feces, after something unexpected blows up in the family's face, you will do whatever you can to make it alright for the kids, two of whom must be trotting off to school shortly, ready to face the judgment and scrutiny of classmates and parents. There is a fine line between sympathy and pity. And a good mother tries to mitigate that as well.

Yes, as much of a rubbernecking car wreck as this is -- and now that the wolf pack has been sicked on John Edwards to determine the lineage of this love child and who is paying whom -- now, I suppose some of it is our right as taxpayers to know. The hounds are already yelping in the distant brush. But it makes me long for the decades of discretion. I think nostalgically of the days when the secret service smuggled a breathy Marilyn Monroe into the White House. I yearn for the private and broad brush-stroked affairs of past presidents, well documented posthumously, but squarely off limits to the press corps of the time. When it comes to protecting the children, I think folks like Jackie O or Lady Bird got it right. Kick him in the scrotum behind the privacy of closed doors, but protect the children at all costs. Even if it means masquerading as an enabler.

UPDATE, 8-15-08, 10:20am:

To all the readers of my blog posts:

Firstly, I love your comments, so keep them coming -- you all have interesting, and diverse thoughts and opinions. This kind of discourse is fun. It's what keeps us alive as a society.

As a mother of four, one who is currently on vacation with all of her kids on what has been an endlessly rainy month where I am -- there is never any extended period of time during which to visit the bathroom by yourself, let alone think.

In reading all of your comments I wanted to add two thoughts that I'd originally had when I sat down (14 different times) to write my Edwards blog in between "Mooo..ooom, she's in my chair" and "When is dinner..."

Firstly, all of you who struggled with the word "enabler" and wrote about that -- thank you. One of the first thoughts I'd originally had when I read Quinn's column was how much I absolutely hate this new-agey, over-used, psycho-babbling word. Enabler-- what does that really mean anyway? It seems like a great word to deflect and dissipate blame from the sinner. Has the wife whose husband has been secretly binge drinking airline bottles of booze in the garage aided his addiction?

Is the mother who didn't find the pot in her kid's school locker an enabler? Some of us simply can't know everything about everyone. Surely we all have doubts about everything at some time, we all second guess ourselves, but I'd like to believe we are all guilty of trying to look for the best parts of our spouses, our children, our neighbors until we see the red herring.

Did the Edwards risk the Democratic nomination by hiding this knowledge? If, in fact, she DID know all in 2006, then I agree that was harmful to the American public.

My point is that we don't really know exactly what she knew then. And it isn't our place to pick over the bones of that one fact at this juncture. That is between them at this point and the damage is done. He didn't get the nomination so in this Greek play, the Gods of fate dealt their hand. America was saved!

What he did with Ms Hunter? Wrong, wrong, wrong. Shame, shame, shame. His actions are worthy of our microscope. He has been publicly castrated already and one can only guess what is going on behind closed doors. (And for those objecting to scrotum-kicking - relax -- don't be so literal, think figurative!)

My point is that we don't really know exactly what she knew. And there is no point in continuing to kick her now. What people do in the dynamics of a marriage is really their business. After the camera takes the confession, after the public figure is humiliated, after we all shake our heads and say "how is it possible these guys think it will never be discovered?" (Do politicians no longer study history, despite their hubris colored glasses?) it's time for us to back away from the bleeding body of the wife.

In fact, how about this theory? Has anyone considered that she didn't know anything in 2006, but in the face of all of this media attention, in all the hideous accusations that are raining down on a family with three innocent kids, perhaps she decided to present a united front and look like an "enabler" to protect them, not him. To make it go away faster. Because really it's all a mess.

A mother lioness will act before she thinks sometimes. She will throw her own body before the tusks of the wild boar to keep her cubs safe. And hasn't Elizabeth Edward's body taken enough blows by now?

Keep up the discourse -- you are a fun bunch. And thanks for reading.

Comments

[MartiWilkinson]

When I was diagnosed with breast cancer I read many stories of women who reported being dumped or cheated on by partners and spouses. What struck me then and now is that cancer changes the dynamics of relationships in ways that can't be readily measured. Before I became ill I was the person that many of my friends relied on. While going through treatment I was not in a position to continue in the same role....my energy had to be on my health and my child. The end result is that I managed to have some of these friends distance themselves from me. It can be argued that cancer taught me who my real friends were.

How Mrs. Edwards illness managed to impact the relationship with her husband is something that only the two of them can really understand. It's unfortunate that some people are choosing to 'blame' her for not going public with what must of been a painful situation. She didn't cause the affair and she is not responsible for the fallout that has come from John Edwards admissions.

The only person who can and should take ownership of this situation is John Edwards not his wife.

[lectora]

If we got the whole thruth, and Elizabeth Edwards knew of the affair before her cancer came back, why didn't she used this to force her cheating husband to get out of the race? If it's true that before she felt traped since they were already running , this gave them the perfect excuse to pull out and save face. But no, they decided to press on with the race and the lie. And that makes her not jut an enabler but a full participant on the deception . What bothers me the most is the holier than thou image that they projected and exploited. She knew John had cheated on her and I don't think anyone in the world believes he is not the father of that child.. Yet she still pretented that he was the best thing that could happen to the country. I mean, how inmoral can that be? I think that it was her ambition and desire to be admired as Elizabeth the Saint got the best of her..

[tardevil]

Many people in NC, Democrats and Republicans alike, wouldn't have JE as our President....even before his affair was revealed. Even the Democrats that supported him financially and politically know that when we elected him, he used the position to further his own personal interests (to run for Prez)...all for the sake of his deceased son (yeah, right!). God bless Elizabeth for putting up with him, but as it has already been said, we'll do a lot for the sake of our children. Besides, cancer is big enough to battle without a messy divorce in the midst of the fight. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall of his McMansion when she found out about the love child. I bet she wiped that smug teethy grin off his face. As Ann Landers once said, you have to decide if you're better off with or without the person you're married to when you're considering divorce. While I don't think I would do the same thing in her situation, she knows more about her marriage than we do. Let's let her live out her life in peace for the sake of her children. They shouldn't have to suffer for what he did. At least now he'll have more time to focus on being their daddy.

[indy100]

Oh jeez, it's the morality stories again. American's are so easily distracted from real issues by gossip and scandal. It is none of our business who sleeps with who, it is personal!! What is our business is who is lying about everything else, aka George W Bush! In 20 years (or 5 for that matter) it won't matter to anyone but those involved who cheated on their spouse; but an ill-advised Chinese financed war, bad economy, endangered environment and global warming will.

[devdil]

There is picture of Edwards and Elizabeth on a campaign rally taken on Dec 3, 06 that also had Reliie present in the picture.
I really think Elizabeth was totally clueless about the affair till well afetrwords (which may have possibly have triggered her cancer resurgence).
Right now, I think she is protecting everyone including John E. maybe she has taken this project for his redemption as her last project.
I also think there is a reason why Hunter is going along with john's story...maybe there is a reward at the end of the story and that is marriage after Elizabeth's death...she is 60 afterall. The sad thing is, Elizabeth probably knows that they are just waiting for her to die.
Someone remarked that Hunter looks like Camilla Bowles. She may meet a similar fate. Camilla was once the most-hated woman but after Diana's death, married Charles and is doing fine. I see a similar ending here...time elapses, Elizabeth dies, Hunter resurfaces, everyne forgets and forgives, and all of them become one happy family.

[Bluedane]

After reading Elizabeth Edwards' story in People Magazine, I have new sympathy for Mrs. Edwards. I can now understand where she's coming from, facing her mortality and realizing that she may leave two young kids behind and she wants to keep her family together for their sake.

She is the only political wife who I understand standing by her husband. She is putting her children first. May God bless her and keep around for many more years to come.

[Docbcs]

Since he's lied on just about everything else, I wouldn't necessarily trust that John Edwards came clean to his family in 2006. Therefore, I wouldn't label Ms. Edwards as an enabler, when she might not have had any info when the good Senator began his presidential run.

[RedSt8r]

Well she doesn't claim that. So, by going by her word, we must see her as a cohort.

Time for them both to stay out of public life, for good.

[PrairieSunshine]

The idea that Sally Quinn would have the cojones to comment in any manner on some other woman's handling of spousal infidelities is breathtakinng in its hypocrisy.

[Forest]

John Edwards is a grown man and deserves to be judged on his behavior. Period.

[RedSt8r]

ditto for Liz.

[myhomeo]

I have no problem that she decided to forgive him and try to salvage their marriage. By campaigning for him after she knew that he had done something that made him politically radioactive and allowing herself and her marriage to be used as props in the campaign she became part of the coverup.

[RedSt8r]

She did not allow herself and her marriage to be used as props in the camapign, she ENGINEERED them as part of the campaign.

Indefensible.

Go away, Edwards. Go away for all day.

[MS]

What's nuts is that our "liberal" society is so focused on who is in bed with whom -- rather than paying much attention to the policies and politics our candidates support.

Elizabeth Edwards and her husband have the right to any arrangement they figure out. As do John McCain and his 2nd wife (with whom he cheated on his first, while she was recovering from back surgery).

I think it's terrible that Edwards thought he could run for Pres and get away with the affair. Imagine if he'd been named the candidate. Now he can't be Atty General (and he would have been a good one, too).

When the French president divorced and married his mistress, the country sighed, but they did not obsess over his bedroom habits. They worried about his politics.

I wish that our society was not so nutty about sex as to make that the point of our elections (particularly if the candidate is a Democrat).

[becky]

Thank You for sharing your thoughts on what it means to be a mother and a wife. I also believe she is
protecting the children, and trying to keep their family as normal as possible (nearly impossible task).
I also believe that what goes on in a marriage is personal, and Elizabeth Edwards does not owe anyone any explanations regarding her decisions in how she was going to handle this. How do we know that John Edwards did not insist to her that he was going to run no matter what, and that he believed that the affair would never become known. What was she suppose to do then.? Go to the press, and make the affair public so he wouldn't run. Can you imagine the media frenzy with that. She has no control over John Edwards behavior. He owns this all by himself.

[malibumadman]

callingasp­adeaspade'­s response to Sally Quinn's piece says it all:

"Excuse me but wasn't Ben Bradley married when you were first involved with him? Let's have a reality check. No one knows the inner workings of anyone's relationship. Aren't you being a little presumptive to criticize Elizabeth Edwards at this point? Speaking as one who has been cheated on (tried to work through it - and ended up divorcing ... no worries, it worked out best for all of us - even our incedibly well-adjusted and successful children) I think what you have to say is a little bit ridiculous. At this point I don't think it's fair to compare J. Edwards with B. Clinton or E. Spitzer as it hasn't been proven that he is a serial adulterer (for no better term). Anyway, I think given your questionable past you really don't have any right to point a finger at anyone else. So there Ms. Quinn, I think you are off the mark. Your grandmother probably also said "Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black!"

August 15, 2008 10:06 PM

[cog1000]

I didn't really care about this much (sleazy, but typical and only the business of Edwards and his family) until campaign finances came into the picture. It's one thing to have a stupid affair and lie about it, it's another to be using campaign contributors' money to pay your mistress. The lies and coverup make me doubt his integrity but it's the misuse of monies that would cause me never to vote for him again. Lots of philandering but effective politicians out there. When they start playing fast and loose with public money, that's unacceptable.


When Hillary was a candidate, Bill Clinton's behavior was of relevance to her possible presidency. Elizabeth Edwards' and Hillary Clinton's personal lives are depressing but not really our business at this point.



I think it's time to talk about something else. I suppose everyone can relate to this and that's why we are all so obsessed. But clearly it will be their children who will bear the brunt of this family chaos and endless media speculation, which is sad.

[allaboutthetruth]

To BurtR - In reference to your comment below - I feel sorry for your
family, glad to know you are not related to me. :)

[moda31]

i don't care whether she decided to stay with her husband, and what her reasons were, that's her right and their business. the reason she is an enabler is because by his and i believe her own admission as well, she knew about his affair before he ran for president. protecting your family, and wanting to salvage your marriage has nothing to do with playing along with her husband's run for the presidency, those are two completely separate things and that's what made her an enabler. at the time that he lied to the american people about his affair she was fully aware that he was lying, and chose to participate in that lie. nobody is arguing that she should have been continually suspicious of her husband in their marriage, that's her business, but she knowingly stood by as he told a bald faced lie, the problem isn't with the intricacies of their marriage, it's with both of them lying to the public whether it was outright or by omission. in the end the public scrutiny of their personal lives that resulted from his run for office was part of what was so damaging to their family, and she had a role to play in avoiding that.

[RedSt8r]

"As it turns out, the candidate's wife is not only an appealing narrator of their story, but a fully engaged political partner with an overarching role in minding his image and crafting his campaign message." - Slate article, 12/2007.

This was after she knew that John was a philandering lout, and SHE crafted the image of he, and their marriage, being something other than that.

"Ladies Home Journal survey in October found that John and Elizabeth Edwards had the happiest marriage. One-third of women say their opinion of how happy a candidate's marriage is will influence vote."

This was also published after she knew of his infidelity. She read this, and was aware that the false narrative that she was portraying was influencing voters, and SHE DID IT ANYWAY.

This couple is quite guilty of manipulation for political and personal gains. Both of them.

That's the story.