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

[cheshirecat831]

Calling victims "enablers" is a very old trick designed to preserve the idea that nothing bad will happen to You and I see all these women who have been beating up on Ms Edwards as simply delusional and unnecessarily cruel. Life is tough enough without forming a sisterhood of finger pointers when a women is hit with something like this. What ever happened to the idea that women are nurturers?

[dawlishgal]

There is such a thing as a wife who enables a philandering husband. One famous wife--an iconic figure among older feminists-- in particular who made repeated tv appearances to get her husband off the hook after he was caught with women almost young enough to be their daughter. . She even described his mistresses as "stalkers" (in case anybody saw them together in public).

Forgiving and sticking by a cheating husband is not necessarily "enabling"....calling his mistresses "stalkers" and trying to make it seem (to the public eye) that he is the victim....THAT is "enabling.," especially when it happens again and again after the first time she tried to explain away the bad behavior.

[dididangerlove]

There is only one part of this story that personally concerns me and that is how this revelation would have affected the Democratic Party had John Edwards become the nominee. That doesn't mean that I don't harbor a great deal of sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards - I do. My lost my sister to breast cancer and I can't imagine being undermined in such a way at such a time. I wish Ms. Edwards only the best as she copes with everything.

[TRYKER]

You know, is kinda hard to feel sorry for the Democratic Party IF something untoward were to happen. As if John Edwards' dalliance could hold a candle to some of the real crimes these guys have acceded to while they "represent" us. How's that foreclosure working out ?
I don't care if John Edwards had sex or a love child, most people have sex and have children.
His policies were right on and he stayed in the race long enough to wake up the other candidates and America that something was seriously amiss here. He and his wife worked tirelessly and we should be thankful and encouraging and understanding.
And for God's sakes, HAVE MERCY.

[sydala]

Gee whiz. Did it ever occur to all of these judgemental people that Elizabeth Edwards is a very caring mother who, however much she might LIKE to leave her husband, doesn't want to further traumatize her children by making them deal with her death from cancer AND a divorce at the same time?

Truly, John Edwards has her hamstrung. Because of her cancer, he's put her in the position of having to choose whether or not to leave him at a time when she knows her children are already going to have to deal with one of the biggest traumas of their young lives since she is terminally ill. I think she has basically said as much in the press by saying that her terminal illness was a factor in her choice to stay. John Edwards is a World Class jerk for putting her in this position at a time like this in my opinion.

And I don't believe for one moment that he told her about this affair at the beginning of 2006 because it doesn't make sense to me that she would have allowed Rielle to go on the campaign trail with them throughout 2006 after finding out that Edwards had been sleeping with her. He should have said that he told his wife in 2007, that would have been a more plausible lie.

[wendy82551]

Not like Elizabeth didn't have more important things to worry about, right?

As my pastor said to me (when I discovered myself in a similar predicament): Do not beat up on yourself, because you did absolutely nothing wrong. You loved and trusted someone who betrayed you. They're the one who did something wrong. The only question for you is, will you allow yourself to love and trust again?

An open question. My heart goes out to Elizabeth in whatever she feels, does, decides.

[mheengan]

Elizabeth is NOT the sinner here! He's the weak one without any moral fiber. Castigating Elizabeth is like kicking a dog when it is down. I agree with Lee's article, she's the one who has it right!

And obviously the American public got it right when they failed to vote for him as the Democratic nominee.

I do not understand why the public wants to blame the injured spouse when something goes awry in the marriage of a public figure. Is it because the public figure, by virtue of their position, takes on the mantle of a good and righteous person without flaws? Is it because that same public feels like they have been duped and can't blame themselves for failing to see beneath the public persona?

The spouse is no more guilty than the public is in placing their trust in someone who does not deserve that trust.

[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.

"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."

More than enabler.

Indefensible.

[claudia2455]

I agree with the author who said "And so I argue that we leave Elizabeth alone."

Does anyone out there remember the V.P. debate in 04? After the debate, when Elizabeth Edwards walked up the aisle, the tears in her eyes seemed to me to come from a heart bursting with enormous pride at how well John E. made the case for progressive values--social justice--ideals she has passionately held dear. We didn't see her when John E. gave his concession speech which--unlike the other John's (which sounded like we should all sit around a campfire, roast marshmallows, and have a group hug)--reminded me a lot of Churchill: on the beaches, in the valleys, in the towns, we will fight you.

Despite John E.'s despicable behavior--Elizabeth is dying--he at least honestly admitted it and didn't attempt evading it like the neo-con scumbags we know too well.

By all means leave Elizabeth alone: and do your damnedest to fight--on the beaches, in the valleys, in the towns--for the social justice issues she has championed all these many years.

[lectora]

The Edwards had the pefect excuse to save face and quit the campaign when the got the news the cancer had return. To continue campaigning as the "perfect, angelic, marvelous couple", is just lying to the American public. And Elizabeth was a part of it.

[AnotherIADem]

This is what I thought, too, until it was revealed that his "2006" confession came on Dec 31, days after he launched the campaign. What to do? Stay with the jerk? Campaign with him? Trust him or not trust him? What is best for the kids? She didn't have all that long to think about it when she broke a rib....and learned that her breast CA was back. What are your priorities when your life expectancy is number in hundreds of days (if you are lucky) not thousands or days? I'm a very staunch democrat, so I am very angry that Edwards would put our party, our chance for the presidency, and the country itself, in such jeopardy. But should we expect Elizabeth to put her party before her children?

I completely agree that John should have taken the chance for a graceful exit when he had it...... but I'm less angry at her, because her decisions were much more complex, and pressured by knowing that her future on this earth with be brief. I'm sure her kids believe in their father, and his race-- it probably killed her to think of ending their dreams.

As for the scrotum-kicking part (Lee's follow-up): I don't have a problem with the literal interpretation.

[LJMinOKC]

It is so easy to judge the other guy/gal ... We should all butt out ... All of us "perfect" people. We are all enabling the National Inquirer ... proud of that?

[dannyS]

thank you

[PaulAbrams]

For whatever it is worth, and probably not much since nothing we say will change behaviors, I think the most IMPORTANT message is that we know enough (JE's willingness to risk the course of the country by running at all--suppose he had won the nomination, we'd be in the same position as Rielle), and that we need to let Elizabeth Edwards (and, by proxy, John Edwards and his family, ALONE) so that Elizabeth can focus on fighting her breast cancer.

I am an oncologist. To me, all that matters is that Elizabeth have every advantage in fighting her disease. Even if, today, there is no cure, the longer she can remain without overt signs of the disease, the more likely a new approach will come along to provide additional benefit.

Personally--and I was not an Edwards supporter---I think John ought to repay all his contributors because his race for the PResidency was a fraud--even if he had won the votes, he could never have won the election.

So, IMHO, we all ought to rail against the Enquirer, not for surfacing the affair, but for keeping on it. If JE or his cmpgn, is guilty of a cmpgn violation, let the FEC handle it, let's stop sensationalizing it, and let Elizabeth have as much peace as possible to summon the strength to combat her breast cancer.

Or, does greed, once again, trump humanity?

[OklahomaGirl]

Agreed. I think I'll stop posting on this subject. Your are right 100%. I imagine this last year has hurt her. I'm a Social Worker, who has worked with all kinds of patient's. Cancer, heart, kidney, hospice, and stress isn't good for them. I know she has good friends who will help her and that she will make the right decisions for herself and her children.

[genoasail]

Really, the whole thing is unutterably sad. And the only thing that is worse, it seems to me, is the perpetual need for the Doyenne of the Potomac Villagers, Sally Quinn, to pass judgment on Elizabeth Edwards.

It's official, sniffed Sally Quinn, twisting her pearls and musing on the color of her new cashmere twinset, "The Edwards' were never "our kind of people".

Pathetic.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

Indeed!

[Reddox]

Not to mention that she was once an "other woman" herself.

[genoasail]

Also, Lee, cheer up about the weather. Tomorrow is supposed to be sunny and a breeze on the lake.

[kendra]

Enabler is right-on.

In 2006 Elizabeth knew & never dissuaded John from running?!
If this affair was exposed earlier or later, would Hillary be the nominee?
Would McCain be a shoo-in?

Very self-centered couple, these Edwards.


(Btw, I'm in your boat, a political buff w/4 small children! )

[suuzie]

What are fathers teaching their sons by this behaviour?

What are mothers teaching their daughters by accepting this behavior (exceptions of EE, her situation is unlike most)?

When are women going to say stop, no more?

Why when a man calls a woman, honey he has committed a cardinal sin, but not when he commits adultery? I have a daughter and I pray she never has to experience what Mrs. Edwards has to endure because of her husband's infedelity.

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

When faced with the news that her husband (my Father) had betrayed her trust and their marriage vows by having an affair that produced a child my Mother initiated divorce proccedings and began to look for a new home for the two of us. Not long after she hired a lawyer she was diagnosed with cancer of the lining of the lungs, a terminal diagnosis. She dropped the divorce proceedings and stayed with my Father until the end. It's a sacrifice any Mother would make for her child without thinking twice about it.

[koolwoman]

I stayed in an unhappy marriage for 25 years, because I had 4 children, and didn't see how I could support them. When 3 were grown and gone, I left. I knew that I could take care of one and myself. However I had a very brief encounter after 12 years. You couldn't call it an affair. I was in such pain and turmoil, and I believe that I was just trying to escape from that hopelessness. He got the truth out of me, because he knew something was wrong. I stayed another 13 years, and he held it over me every day.. His dalliances were o.k., but not mine. When I left the marriage and moved to another city, the heavy weight lifted from my shoulders, and I felt that I had gotten rid of cancer. So after saying all this, i try not to judge other people. However, I do not blame Elizabeth at all. She was doing everything she was supposed to do, and my heart goes out to her.I have great admiration for Elizabeth. Obviuosly she feels that John would take care of the children better than anyone else, and she is putting the children first., because she knows she won't be there for them. John will have to make peace with himself. That is worse punishment than the public could mete out.

[janex]

What I find problematic is not that she is staying with him, but that she supported the run for president. Had he been the nominee, this would be a deal killer. For those of us adamantly opposed to the idea of a McCain candidacy, the decision to run for president has ramifications that go far beyond the Edwards' marriage.

At this point, I think Elizabeth should divorce John, get as much money as she can so that when she does die, she can leave her money to her children. It is clear that he will be pulling a Paul McCartney and marrying the first bimbo that comes along after Elizabeth is gone.

I understand that people stay in difficult marriages for reasons that are nobody's business but their own, and I am sorry that you had to spend an additional 13 years with someone who was hateful to you, but the fact of the matter is if the Democratic Presidential Candidate fails to win in November, the world will not be a better place. I am guessing that the stakes of your marriage were not quite so high.

[BehindTheScenes]

Thanks for a wonderful blog, one of a very few on this topic that really stands out for its humanity and its common sense. It seems so easy for us humans to swing to extremes -- in this case, either "there are no shoulds so why all the judgment" or else "they're all guilty whether I know anything about the situation or not, and so I wanna see blood because it turns me on and makes me feel so morally superior." John is getting his karmic retribution in full. Yes, he made a terrible and stupid mistake for which he's responsible, but why not wish that he learn from this and become a better man, more able to serve the public good, than wish that he suffer ignominy for the rest of his life? And Elizabeth? Why second guess her at all, why blame her at all, when we know so little?! She certainly is deserving of sympathy, and otherwise of being left alone to heal.