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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have no problem with Elizabeth Edwards deciding to stick with her husband - that's none of my business. I DO have a big problem with him proceeding to run for president and her championing him when it put the Whitehouse at risk - that IS my business and everyone elses. Can you imagine the election being lost over something like this, because Edwards (and his wife) thought it was okay to take the risk that it wouldn't be discovered.
This is, indeed, the problem with this whole affair. If John and Elizabeth Edwards were not public figures, sure, I agree it would be none of our business. But the problem is that John Edwards was running for the office of President of the United States. If he had been the Democratic nominee, the details of this affair could very well have torpedoed his candidacy and given the White House to the Republicans. By their actions, John and Elizabeth Edwards were gambling with the future of our country that the affair would not be found out. The hubris of it all, that's the real problem here. And that's what makes this a legitimate news story.
I can not hold Elizabeth accountable for this...
Edwards, how could you do this to her?
And how could she do this to us?
She or he have done nothing to us. Whatever discomfort anyone not directly connected with this is suffering is strictly her or his own fault, a result of her or his voyeurism. We should be judging our politicians on the values that directly affect their constituents, not on what happens in their personal lives. Unfortunately, most politicians fall short on the former, which is why our political system is so corrupt today.
I have been in Elizabeth Edwards's shoes, but without the fame and the press and the millions of people giving their opinions, and without the additional burden of cancer. It was almost unbearably painful, but I was fortunate enough to be able to make my decisions about the future in my own time, without input from the immediate world!
How tragic it would be, for Elizabeth Edwards and John Edwards and their children, if we---the public, the media, the friends and relatives of John and Elizabeth and Ms. Hunter (the other woman)---hound her until she makes decisions that she would not have made under different circumstances. I don't think of her as an enabler; rather, I see her as a woman trying desperately to hold her life and her marriage together, and of course to protect her children. It is inexcusable to label her as an enabler, or to label her in any other way. Watching that repulsive slimeball Rush Limbaugh actually blaming Elizabeth made me want to throw up. We simply don't know what is in Elizabeth's head and in her heart. There is a saying that "the heart has its reasons." I'm willing to leave it at that. We should all move along. There's nothing more to see here, folks.
Lee, you are spot on with your support of Elizabeth Edwards. Anyone who's been brought to their knees with life's losses and tragedies can uniquely identify with her. She is a woman who is enduring a child's death, the loss of good health and promise of a long life, and now a cheating husband and public humiliation. Who are we to judge her and tell her what to do?
Exactly...many people have been in similar straits. Without the glare of flashbulbs and prying TV cameras, it might be possible to jettison one's marriage to save one's dignity, but Elizabeth is hanging on to a mortal thread...why go through what may be her last days wallowing in self-pity and hatred for her husband? Such negative energy could not help her cope with an already serious condition.
You've put your cancer on display as the cornerstone of a national campaign?
Otherwise I don't see the relevance...
I haven't put cancer on display, because as I clearly stated, I am fortunate enough not to have cancer----which seems to make your comment irrelevant.
Wrong. The woman is neither an object to be envied, pitied or villified. The whole thing comes down to her just making the choice to stay. That is her problem. Our problem is having her idiot husband do this. If she contributes to it, so much for her credibility. But we can ignore her. Best for all concerned.
May the same situation befall you and let's see how you handle it...I doubt you would appreciate such a callous interpretation.
John Edwards' affair is NOT my problem. It is the problem only of those directly connected to it. If we were to judge our politicians by marital fidelity, half of the politicians in this country would be ineligible to hold office.
If she wants to stay with him, it's certainly none of my business. She has to make that decision based not only on what is right for her (would you want to spend the last months or years of your life in divorce court?), but what is right for her children (it could very well be that she doesn't want the poison that can come from a divorce to ruin the relationship her young children would have with their only surviving parent). The problem I have is her full-throated support of his campaign. That was a public act, not a private one. What was she thinking, that he, alone among all politicians, wouldn't get caught? What would it have done to the causes he supports, that are supposedly the reason he was running, to have a standard-bearer mired in controversy and scandal? That's the part I don't get.
She may have felt it was sink or swim time for him, and if he went on, and it came out, then he would face the consequences...could very well be she felt it was an act of revenge? I seriously doubt that, however, since she doesn't strike me as a woman who thinks along such dramatic and destructive lines...still, the end result has not been good for her or her children...what befalls him, I really don't care...public humiliation and derision are only the beginning of what he deserves.
For a supposedly Christian nation, we certainly seem to have forgotten the concept of forgiveness. Maybe she decided to forgive and heal. They have three children and a long marriage of shared experience including the death of a son. Maybe she thinks she can forgive.
I have known many women who choose to forgive, despite endless hurt and humiliation. The added dimension of facing possible death can only make the equation that much more difficult for her...why do we need to add to the drama?
hello... I totally disagree with your article. Elizabeth and other enablers teach society that it is ok for a man or a woman to cheat. It teaches little girls to accept this behavior because they see their mother doing so. It is not healthy for children to see how any type of affairs or sexual and romance or love addiction wrecks havoc on the home. You say.. that a mother protects her children? A mother who is an enabler teaches her children to be co dependent as well as enablers. That is a tragedy. Get your facts straight.. how addictions and yes.. having consistent affairs is an addiction, are poison in the nuclear family.
See Horace McMillon's Profile
No, affairs are not alright. They never are. Nevertheless, we all fall short in some way and in some area. Further, in many cases (though not all) the affair is merely the most visible signal of relationship issues that need to be addressed on both sides. Affairs do not necessarily mean that the spouses no longer love each other. They do mean they have a lot of work to do. The key to a loving relationship that stands the test of time is being willing to acknowledge mistakes, learn from mistakes and forgive. I admire Elizabeth for that. If a couple is willing to do this, in many cases the relationship can fully restored -even strengthen. The idea that we end a relationship because of a partner's failing is part of our problem. By that standard, very few relationships could endure. Forgiveness conquers all.
Forgiveness can be a very powerful source of healing, not just a symptom of fallibility by enabling, as some have rashly put it.
John Edwards' vote to enable Bush to go to war was a far greater transgression than was his adultery, which is none of our business. His vote for the war enabled the deaths of tens of thousands of people and directly affects us. His personal life has no bearing on us and to the extent that we are obsessed with it, we are colluders in his adultery.
Excellent insight, as usual. What happens between and couple is their business. I love to read your columns because you always have something worthwhile to say.
What happens between a couple is their business UNTIL they decide to appear on television and make it the world's busness! That is what is unforgiveable, particularly in light of the fact that they have children!
Some ppl would have condemned her for ratting her hubby out while others condemned her for not making waves. I doubt she could "win" there -- and it wasn't a situation she wanted, either. I sympathize with her.
It may also be the case that Elizabeth knew and accepted it; that they had an open marriage, etc. It's so tempting for people to fall back on age-old sexual and gender stereotypes in situations like this. I agree that what goes on in a marriage is between the people involved.
I also think that most people lack a basic understanding of human psychology. Individuals who have the drive, stamina, and (even) narcissism to become major leaders tend to have issues with boundaries.
That most certainly seemed to be the case with the Clintons...again, how a couple configures their marriage, as long as both sides come to some mutual understanding and can work through the issues that confront them with some degree of success, it is a positive thing, even though, of course, there may be strains and even a lessening of love that causes distance.
I think Elizabeth is a very courageous womon. She knows she probably won't be around for long and wanted her children to have a father, such as he is.
I also think Elizabeth loves John and wanted his happiness. I really don't understand the tactic of attacking her at all. It stumps me.
People see in themselves how they would handle a situation and are quick to judge. Only she knows what will work best for her in this marriage when she knows that her life may soon come to an end. She is thinking of her children, I have no doubt, as any Mother would, first and foremost, and I agree, leaving her children behind without a father, no matter what he has done, is not something I believe she felt happy with.
I admire the compassion that you have for Elizabeth in this situation-- my heart goes out to her.
Thank you for this post. I agree whole heartedly and wish the media would consider the ramifications of their obsession with this story on the Edward's children, but the media is all about money and human destruction is a big dollar item. We live in a very sad society.
This is a good post. I, too, feel that these things really have no place in the public eye to the extent they are, if only for the innocents caught in the path of destruction, the children. I feel that while these acts are not exactly indicative of high moral character, nobody outside of a marriage knows what goes on behind closed doors. It should be for them to work out. However, I will say that any politician who does what Edwards did, knowing what the repercussions would be if he were discovered -- and knowing that they would be discovered -- should have exercised better judgement. An understatement, to say the least. And thank god he did not get the party's nomination. That makes me shudder. But leave Elizabeth and her family alone. They don't deserve any of this. Thanks for your heartfelt post.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
