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

[Petunia12]

I'm afraid that Elizabeth is trying to protect the children by carrying on normally. Reminds me of my dysfunctional family of birth where the truth was hidden and the parents pretended like everything was always okay regardless to what was actually happening in reality. Very surreal and disorienting to children who always know more than adults think they do and shocking when they find out they have a half-sister who has never even been mentioned. It seems like the more you try to hide the truth to protect anyone, the more problems it causes when it does come out plus then you have to deal with the dishonesty too. Children don't need the gory details but please stop pretending that everything is hunky-dory. Kids will find out eventually and I think it is better if the parent's don't spend all their time trying to cover up,lie and pretend that there is not an elephant in the room!!!!

[TN]

What is the lowest of low is that Edwards didn't tell her until after he launched his campaign. Talk about calculating and selfish. I can imagine how Elizabeth is feeling any respect she had for her husband is gone.

[concern4civility]

I'm reminded of the story of a man who gets bumped to the ground, and yells, " What'sa matter, are you blind." Well, in fact the man who knocked him over WAS blind. Other than this *tawdry* affair, everything I am privy to about John Edward's as a political and family man has shown him to be basically a decent human being. We are not talking of a pattern of infidelity here, but an incident in the life of a man who has faced immense losses. Why are we so anxious to pick up stones to throw at him and/ or his wife? A great spiritual teacher advised "Man finds faults in others after bringing his own mind to that level. Does anything ever happen to another if you enumerate his faults? It only injures you...." and "... if you want peace, do not find fault with others. Rather see your own faults. Learn to make the whole world your own...." [this is not intended to ignore repeated, aggregious behavior--so don't overextend it's meaning, please ]

[BeamMeUpScotty]

For the sake of argument, let's say Elizabeth knew about and is OK with the affair. That does not excuse the fact that John Edwards used extremely poor judgement in carrying on in so public a manner. In this age of paparazzi and cell phone cameras, it is virtually impossible for a high profile person to keep their extramarital sex lives from being found out. From John Edward staffers to Reilly Hunter and company, this thing reeks of sabotage.

Even if Elizabeth Edwards is an "enabler", she did not deserve to have her husband shove his affair in her face for all the world to see.

[neurologymatters]

Elizabeth Edwards is an intelligent woman. She is a private citizen, as are her children. Elizabeth has the right to do what is best for her and her children. He pays $400.00 for a haircut-I hope Mrs. Edwards makes him pay dearly. Perhaps she will endorse a candidate of her choosing. His opinion is worthless.

[caraqueno]

Ladies and gentlemen:

This whole John Edwards affair and the space taken up in here really reflects our puritanical heritage and nature. No, I don't condone adultery but whether I do it or George W. Bush does it, it is that person's business. The American public has no business in the matter unless public funds were PROVEN to have been used in a public official's adultery. Then, it's a political ethics matter, not a permit to try a man (or woman) for adultery.

Many countries (I lived in Venezuela during the mid-1980's when it occurred) elect leaders and don't expect them to be exemplary familial role models. They expect them to be effective leaders who bring about greater wealth to all and protection of civil liberties.

We, Americans, inherited this Puritan ethic that makes it okay for us to try and judge politicians on their love lives, as if that has any direct bearing on their ability to lead. Heaven knows, most of greatest presidents would never have finished their terms of office had the public known of their private lives.

[BlueZoo]

The difference here is Latin Americans who run for office do not project themselves as models of virtue, while Edwards did. Had he not portrayed himself as a Christian family man and loving husband, the outcry wouldn't be half as bad as it is.

[janex]

One thing you overlook, however is the amount of money that was given to Edwards. I personally know someone who sold insurance to the campaign, and did not take a commission. This person is out most likely, tens of thousands of dollars to support a candidate who was too flawed to compete.

North Carolina is a small town of ten million people. The News and Observer had been pursuing the story for nine months when it broke. Given that Andrew Young's wife was apparently talking about this at the salon where she gets her hair done, I am hard pressed to believe that Elizabeth didn't know.

I personally would like to see both John and Lisa undergo DNA testing. With her drug and sexual history, it is not very likely that at her age she conceived the child naturally.

[Hoelder]

It is disturbing when the quality of a politician depends on him adhere to marriage vows which by all means are religious and marriage licenses which are financial. All it speaks to is the hypocrisy of conservative right wingers that again hi jacked the moral grounds, with Sen Craig still in office, under the disguise of discussions of enablers and blame without rooting it in any form a human dimension and the social environment. In order to have a fling you need a woman willing to have one and a man in power and money to have the opportunity to do so. Even with a prostitute you need money. Sen Edwards is a good looking, influential man. From a male perspective, you do not plan to orchestrate a fling without any stress or lack of male identity at home. But then I am nobody! I would think of my son and my responsibility. I do not need to. I am just a meaningless nothing. As it plays out, it is one of traits of this society to shame people to control them.

[BlueZoo]

You are NOT a meaningless nothing and you can prove it by VOTING in November! You owe that much to your son!

[kevinw]

What is being ignored is the hard pragmatic edge to Elizabeth. She knew about the affair before the campaign got off the ground for President. She made the calculated risk to sit by her husband and provide him with cover. This story, especially with a kid involved will come out. The question is when. If during the primary season (all the way to convention) it iwll blow chance at being candidate or VP. If it breaks during GE, then it could take down the entire ticket. If you can keep it quiet until inauguration, then you will have a rough go for awhile, but you broke no laws. They were hoping for the last option. That means that Elizabeth and John were hoping to beat out the story for personal gain. Even though the danger to the Party and to Obama the nominee was great. They did not even back away when he lost the nomination. They stuck together aiming toward the VP job or a high cabinet post. It was hard cold political calculation. All of the other talk is feel good psychobabble to excuse the wife as victim. Was she a victim of his fooling around yes. Was she a victim of lying to the party and press about her situation to gain higher office, NO. She was an un-indicted co-conspirator.

[Cowboylove]

I cannot believe the Rush Limbaugh's of the world who somehow blame Elizabeth Edwards for this debacle. Sorry, I am just not buying any of that crap.

Elizabeth was blindsided by this affair, hit with a partial confession early in the campaign around the time she heard her cancer had returned with a vengeance. Quite frankly, I imagine she wanted to kill John Edwards , but her higher self prevailed, realizing that she had children who may very well be left with only John to look after them.

I cannot and will not judge Elizabeth Edwards on this. She is a great lady who was unfortunately married to someone less than she. But then, we always knew that, deep down, didn't we. Elizabeth is the one who won our hearts. Elizabeth is the one we wanted to see in the White House.

Was she wrong to keep quiet? I leave that for God to judge. To me this great lady can do no wrong. She showed a new generation what grace and class is all about. I will always adore her and thank her for the role model she was and continues to be. If she asked me to, I may even forgive John Edwards - though that would be difficult.

[NABNYC]

The Republicans are using Edwards' affair to try to convince the public that all Democrats are sleazy. Like the Detroit mayor whose crime is that he had an affair, yet to see the media coverage, and to see him in cuffs on nation TV, you'd think that he'd done something really awful like lie the country into war.

Rupert Murdoch and Fox are sponsoring this anti-Edwards, ultimately anti-Obama assault. Who's next?

Ask yourself this: who took the photo of Edwards with the baby? Somebody asked him to meet at the hotel (presumably to "ask" for "assistance), handed him the baby, snapped the picture probably with a hidden cell phone. Then at a critical point, the photo shows up on the front page of the Enquirer. Who do you think set the whole thing up?

Leave it alone. He had an affair. In particular, leave his wife alone. Doesn't anyone have any sense of propriety anymore? Leave her alone. She's got breast cancer, she's got personal betrayal from her husband. Do we really want papparazzi to stick cameras in her face, chase her around asking her how she "feels" about her life? She's a terrific lady. Leave her alone.

[haleywins]

Attacking a woman for her choices is wrong. I have no problem with a woman "enabling" her spouse, if that's what she chooses to do, it is none of our business. Should he be president, who knows. Americans are too tied up in others' marriages, which is plain dumb.

[Star123]

I was an Edwards supporter. If this couple knew this was lying out there, they should have ended the run--if he had been more successful, it would have still come out and hurt the party, the country because it warped the system, and those who ponied up their hard-earned money and despite many decades of skepticism about politicians, had even mustered a little belief once a again. And now because this wasn't ended, Eliz Edwards kids are even more likely to get a negative impression of their dad when they are older.

[Boston1775]

Elizabeth decided to homeschool her kids on the campaign bus.
She decided to be on the campaign trail with aggressive cancer.
At the time, I wondered why.
Now, I think she knew.
It's fine if she decided that she and her family would be better off handling their problems this way.
It's not fine that she decided that I and my fellow Democrats and Independents should be kept out of the loop unless and until the mess exploded.
I'm pretty sure she'd lost control of John's actions. His judgment in having his girlfriend at his announcement and not his wife speaks volumes.
So, she did the best she could to put herself and her kids front and center in his daily life.
She put herself and her kids ahead of the mess that John Edwards would make for our country.
I understand; it's just that this country didn't deserve this.
This is the most important election of my long life, and I don't appreciate the risks they were willing to take.

[mymatrix]

Per your update: I never believed she knew in 2006. Think she would go ahead with this explosive knowledge once the incurable cancer verdict was added to the mix? No. Only someone with crazed, blind, selfish ambition could so act, and we know his name.
Per my earlier response as the woman who "stayed", there were times I covered up his mess, but not to protect him , but to protect our children from public humiliation (and me). Staying for the kids has become an unacceptable choice in our culture but spend some time talking with kids of divorce and the unexpected results that spin off (the new "mother", the step kids invasion, the daddy who moves three states away for a better job, daddys new girlfriend, suddenly poor....)
We get to hear loads in our magazines and tv about how spouses are effected by a partners behavior and parents problems, because they are the ones telling the tale. Children's perspectives/interests are seldom articulated.

[Collette777]

mymatrix... well said.