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

[darcy]

It sounds to me like you don't trust your husband. Better follow your gut and find out what he's up to.

I really don't understand why we women keep expecting fidelity when something like 80% of men cheat, according to various studies. It's not in men''s nature to confine their sexuality to one person.

[kevinw]

There are a lot of married women that they cheat with

[waitforme]

Part II.(See Part I. below) People are generally bonded with the first person they make love with (us) and have a child with. They tell the 'other woman' that their marriage isn't what it should be. The woman believes it (see Rielle Hunter telling cameras (!!) that 'some families are much different from what other people see'. Her inanity for believing that, and her going after a married man in the first place, suggests such extreme denial, ignorance, selfishness and stupidity that it is unbelievable.)
I believed my ex-husband and his new wife when they both claimed that she was a 'new' lover, that he had broken up with the 'first one'. That they had never, themselves, had an affair while he was married to me. Her (Catholic) guilt, presumably, and their secret, has made my and my daughter's life miserable in some ways since then as she treated me as the other woman, as a pariah and took it out on us.
I believed him for twenty years. Finally they both admitted it. In fact, I couldn't have insisted he remain with us and 'work it out'; I didn't have all the facts. (I also didn't understand about our deep bonding, and the potential temporariness of infatuation.)
I continued to believe a man whom I knew had lied to me for 1 1/2 years. 'It is easier to trust', but also you just can't control or know someone else completely. Darn it.]

[waitforme]

People who read all of this should not be encouraged to distrust their spouses. As a psychiatrist I worked with once, as an intern, said to a couple who came in for couple's therapy, 'It is easier to trust'.

[To the commentators who cavalierly say 'Leave him!' I say I have had decades to think about what I wished I had done when my husband, soon after our breaking up (because I couldn't get him to speak to me anymore), told me he 'had had' an affair. I didn't know at the time that it was still ongoing and that he would later move in with that same woman and marry her. I wish I had told him to stay. I wish I had contacted both our parents (we were all in our twenties). I wish, when I knew he was still seeing her, I had contacted her (Catholic) parents. Maybe we could have gotten some support for staying together. Gotten some money for therapy. Gotten over the worst developmental time for our daughter at 2 1/2. (My former psych prof. suggested we stay together until she turned three. I wish I had asked him why.) I wish I wish I wish. We would have eventually divorced anyway. But I wish I had told him no, I wasn't going to accept that he was 'in love' with another woman.
(See Part II below)

[klmebane]

its not in human nature to be monogamous.

[jojojo]

Of course, these men were cheating, but they were cheating WITH someone, as all cheaters--male and female--are.

Many studies show that women cheat as much as men. Would we write about raping them or cutting out their clitoris in revenge or punishment?

I think not. It's no more appropriate to write about castration or kicks to the scrotum, then pass it off as metaphor, and say don't get excited..

[secondnature]

I don't think Elizabeth should even be open for discussion....when she knew, how she found out, if she has forgiven her husband, if she has told the children, why she chose to support his campaign. She was traumatized and likely her whole world was turned upside down, and none of us has the right to judge how she reacted in the face of her pain and shock.

And the personal reasons why John Edwards betrayed his family shouldn't be ours to discuss either. What hell that family has been through! A part of me can understand him wanting to escape the dead child, the cancer, the perfect husband box he had found himself in.

What we can discuss is what kind of hubris it took for John Edwards to launch a run for the White House knowing that at any moment this could blow up. I was an early supporter of Edwards and now I'm pissed that my $25 campaign contribution was likely used to pay off that flaky hanger-on.

I seriously would like that $25 back since in the interim I have discovered that MY husband is a philanderer and now, after raising four kids, I am likely to be on my own, uninsured, with few job skills and approaching (oh who am I kidding?!) smack dab in the middle of middle age... :(

[RedSt8r]

Your level of contrition defies logic.

Send me $25...

[Almeda]

Elizabeth Edwards made herself open for discussion when she went before the media and the American people, knowing that her husband was a lying adulterer, and told us that he was a fine man and that he was so committed to women's issues. SHE lied to us, too. I have no problem with he decision to remain in the marriage "for the long haul;" that is her decision to make. But I do have a problem with her lying to me about John Edwards.

She could have remained silent, but chose to make speeches describing John Edwards in terms she knew were untrue. I am very, very disappointed in this aspect of Mrs. Edwards. I can only explain it by guessing that it was a message to both Ms. Hunter and Sen. Edwards that here was a way she could be useful to the Edwards campaign that Ms. Hunter couldn't. It doesn't excuse it for me, but it could explain it.

[JJK]

This is not just "between them."

In the 220 years since Americans selected our first President in 1789, only 43 men and their families have occupied the executive mansion.

Elizabeth and John Edwards were making a credible argument that they shouild be the 44th man and family to do so.

Elizabeth Edwards was an active presence throughout the campaign. Elizabeth and John were frequently accompanied by their children, not shy about presenting themselves as an attractive family. Elizabeth Edwards was an outspoken critic of her husband's opponents and garnered considerable coverage for that.

The American people have a compelling, legitimate interest in understanding the truthfulness of their self-presentation. If Elizabeth Edwards actually knew about "the affair" before John ran or if she continued to attack his opponents after she learned about it, then she was helping him deceive us--you and me. That's not private.

No one forced the Edwards to put themselves up for consideration as our 44th President and First Lady in 220 years. No one twisted their arms to run, twice. If Elizabeth Edwards indeed learned of the affair only after the campaign began, no one forced her to continue as party to the deception.

They held themselves and their family up to us. They sought our support on false pretenses. Under those pretenses, they took votes that may (or may not!) have influenced the outcome of the entire primary process.

This is not "just between them." They involved us, a long time ago.

[juzcuz]

well thought-out and well said... couldn't have said it better. Aren't we looking for a president to lead this country - who is honest, trust-worthy, inwardly knows right from wrong to the bone... in other words someone who has unwavering integrity... to the MAX? I'm very disappointed in Dear John and wonder if he'll be getting a Dear John letter, like Dear Bill should've gotten years ago. Once someone has been betrayed in a loving relationship...I don't think things will ever be the same; love once had is questionable forever.

[Rockerbabe]

The issues of enabling usually have to do with love and the desire to protect. It could be a parent, a child, a spouse, a sibling or a dear friend and mentor that one is seeking to protect. I don't know Mrs. Edward's motivations regarding her husband's indiscretions, but she seems like a strong, resilent and forgiving sort of woman to me. I think she did the best she could under the circumstance and we ought not be castigating her for her loyalty to her husband. Married folks always seem to have some sort of "baggage" they carry around with them; as if the rest of us, especially those folks in the media, didn't have the same life experiences. I think Huff Post should investigate some of the media personalities personal life and see just what crosses they bear and what conflicts of interest they are seeking to hide from the light of day!
Otherwise, elect single people to public office; at least when we fool around, there isn't the pretense of a marriage involved!

[messy]

Actually, according to pretty much every nature show I've seen. A mother lion won't. The first thing Daddy lions do when they enter a pride is to murder all the cubs.

The momma lions aren't happy about this, but it's a fact that they go into heat as soon as baby is eaten by the new boy in town.

[Boadicea]

I don't know how true your statement is, but I do know this:

There is no motivating force on this planet more powerful than my instinct to protect my child. I would kill anyone without hesitation who threatened her welll-being. There is nothing I wouldn't do for her if I thought it was in her best interest (granted, the two of us have not always agreed on what constitutes her best interest.)

My daughter is 26 now, but I would still claw the eyes out of someone who was intent on harming her.

Perhaps I'm wrong in assuming that this is the norm, but I don't think so.

[kevinw]

If that were Elizabeth's motivation, she would have gotten John to drop out and disappear from the scene before this broke in the press. She knew before the first primary vote in Iowa. How is that protecting her children.

[kellygrrrl]

I also think it is a knee-jerk reflex response for women, especially mothers, to feel GUILTY

we always blame ourselves when our children or husband are unhappy
sometimes that only lasts a moment, sometimes is lasts forever
but I think we all do it

[ohjoy]

How true.

[JennyJay]

Interesting article - and I agrees with the premise that women have good reason to be enablers.
Because usually there is no other option available to them in our society.
Women get paid 75 cents to every dollar a man earns, for the same job - not because they have "good reason" - but because they don't have any FREAKING CHOICE IN THE MATTER.
In the middle east women cover every inch of their body (except the eyes) with cloth, not because
they have "good reason" - but because THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE.
Males are still setting all the rules in our society and in most societies, if we are enablers it is because - what freaking choice to we have? ? ? ? ? ?

[TXfemmom]

I can see where Elizabeth would want to shield the children, but she should never, ever have agreed to support him in running for office again. By doing that, she just improved the chances of the children being hurt.

Enabling all these cheaters is not a good thing for the women, their children, and society in the long run.

[mymatrix]

I suspect she did not know. Who knows what bargain she made in exchange for no public disclosure that this kid was Johns. It is one thing for two little kids to hear that Daddy is friends with this woman, quite another that she had his baby, they have a secret sibling.
As the woman who "stayed" I have no regrets. I put my pain and righteousness second to the childrens welfare. I made my own independent life within this "in name only" marriage. No martyrdom here. I am the one who chose this man to be their daddy.
We don't acknowledge the loss the divorce usually is to children. In one home, the family orbits around them. In two homes, the children orbit around their parents (I know, you both bend over backwards to meet the kids schedule...) Doesn't matter. Something deep gets wounded when the family dissolves in a way we don't fully understand or acknowledge.
Children need to be protected, even if it means putting their needs above yours. I know, often separation is the lesser of two evils and I don't judge that. If he is abusing you or the kids, he's gotta go if he won't get effective treatment. And if you have to separate, do it in the least damaging way, such as both of you living within walking distance of each other.
No regrets, the kids loved this arrangement and I thrived by striking out WITHin the marriage.

[jack1105]

None of this is our business. Leave them alone.

[RedSt8r]

We didn't go on Nightline.

[nellie]

Thank you.

[johnnygoodwud]

as a reformed enabler, let me just remind you, when the person you are enabling doesn't 'need' you anymore, you're often times toast. do you think alot of enablers are also control freaks?

[snowdog]

This is all very sweet. I agree that she was a victim of John's infidelity, and I feel sorry for her. She doesn't deserve that.

However, you are missing the point that, after she was made aware of the affair, she campaigned with John for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Fully knowing that this was in the background and could, probably would, show up and bite them and us in the butt.

Close you eyes and imagine if John Edwards had the nomination right now. This would have steamrolled the Democratic chances of winning the White House and pushed us to end up with four more years of Bush. Just so she could protect her cubs from embarrassment.

No, if she wanted to protect her family, she would have encouraged John to drop out of the race and they could have healed in private. Instead she decided to risk the country. Luckily, we managed to dodge the bullet fired by John and Elizabeth Edwards.

[Roose]

The old adage comes to mind: "What a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"

Instead of going back to their private lives, they BOTH decided to cover up and lie in order to run again. Their choice in running for public office makes it our business.

[robiform]

Snowdog, you've said everything that I've been thinking about this situation--thanks! I would add that as time goes on, it appears that Mr. Edwards might not have been entirely truthful in the ABC interview regarding how long he was involved with Ms. Hunter. I am so glad that Obama will be the Democratic nominee!

[littLdy2]

Why is it everything always comes back to Obama, Obama, Obama? Nuts! Leave the Edwards alone to work out their own problems.

[mairs]

This is exactly what I've been thinking too. Thanks for putting it so well snowdog. But Ms. Woodruff wants us to give Elizabeth the benefit of the doubt as to when she actually knew of his affair, even though Edwards said she knew about it in '06. If she only recently learned the facts then that would put it in a different light. All this says to me is that his credibility is shot, as we no longer believe a word he says about anything, and that is disheartening.

[snowdog]

Yeah, I see the point being made today by Ms. Woodruff, but why are we even questioning the truth of Mrs. Edwards posting on dailykos? (if there's a reason, please let me know. :))

I think we have to give Elizabeth the benefit of the doubt that she was truthful in that post where she said she was told in 2006 and that was when they began the healing process. which is fine, and admirable for their private lives.

She said:
"John made a terrible mistake in 2006. The fact that it is a mistake that many others have made before him did not make it any easier for me to hear when he told me what he had done. But he did tell me. And we began a long and painful process in 2006, a process oddly made somewhat easier with my diagnosis in March of 2007. This was our private matter"

If it is true, then they should have taken that opportunity to withdraw from public life, to focus on their family. Which is where the priorities should have been, not on his ambition.

[Dots]

What if the other woman had been a man?
What if he had not been married?
What if he hadn't made such a big deal out of "I'll stand by my woman"?
What if he had no kids?
What if he hadn't run for President and Hillary got his delegates?
Another ambitious "I Want It All" phoney spin doctor has been revealed.
The Universe is no doubt unfolding as it should.
I THANK GOD HE ISN'T GOING TO BE PRESIDENT.

[Fabienne]

I presume you deplore the fact that Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Clinton were ever Presidents, as they all have done what John Edwards has done. So has McCain, for that matter.

[Dots]

And what does that tell you?

[eggman]

Elizabeth Edwards' reaction to her husband's infidelity is a personal choice. Deciding to stick by him does not make her an 'enabler'. Liberals talk about freedom of choice a lot but they can be just as authoritarian and judgmental as conservatives.

[Roose]

This has nothing to do with liberal/co­nservative­. It has to do with lying, cheating and trustworthiness.

[vinny]

"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..."

"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..."

What kind of marriage do you have? Dont believe, want to believe, or just believe?