Why John Edwards affair really matters-by Michealene Cristini Risley

I was disappointed. I must admit it was a familiar feeling. Another American politician caught with their pants down in the wrong room with the wrong woman...or worse in a bathroom with the wrong man. The argument I have heard often is, politicians have a right to a private life and their private life has no bearing on their ability to lead. How can one's behavior in one setting have no affect on how this person would lead our country or handle their office in another scenario? When I hear this argument I flash back to the large vat of Kool-aid in Jonestown and think somehow it reached our water supply. How can a person's personal behavior not give you a window into their true character?

My Mother use to always say "You can tell the man, by how he treats his mother"... Or his wife and family. And more so, when caught in a tough situation, how does that person behave? Do they deny till the truth is irrefutable? How does ones courage under fire measure up in that scenario? How do we NOT hold our leaders accountable for truth and honesty? Aren't those two key components of integrity?

It does remind me a bit of how we deal with domestic violence in the United States. When a situation happens in a home, even today police officers are often discouraged from getting involved. It is still called considered a domestic matter. Why the Cybil split? If a man beats his wife, it is a domestic issue. If he did the same thing to a stranger, it's assault. Does anyone else see this outdated double standard? Perhaps this double standard is part of the global problem of violence against women and girls.

When any individual hold's themselves up as a beacon of hope and leadership they should expect serious scrutiny. I heard often from John Edwards speeches how important his religion is to his life and his family. IS there any hypocrisy in a personal stance and affirmation on religion but then ignoring the basic tenants of that religion when it's inconvenient?

I heard on NPR yesterday, a number of letters and emails protesting their coverage of Edwards's affair. Its true how you cover a story is critical in your own credibility as a newscaster or reporter of publication. But...How do you evaluate one's integrity without looking at the whole?

How do we discriminate when we pick friends, spouses or people we choose as leaders? What are the criteria for each of us? My father taught me that you can see the real "mettle" of a person during a crisis. When John F. Kennedy died, wasn't Jackie's' response and her dignity throughout the ordeal that cleaved her to our American hearts forever? John Edwards "mettle" when confronted continually was to deny and rant about the "terrible tabloid trash". After his lies have been revealed, what makes him stand apart from the tabloid trash he referred to?

Another one of my father's favorite sayings was "You have to be an Indian before you're a chief" I use to roll my eyes at that one. Not again, I would think to myself. Yet, he was right. He would further talk about the responsibilities one has as a chief, to lead with experience and gained wisdom.

Even after admitting the affair to his wife and family, he still lied again. How can one not go beyond shame and say "wait a minute" who is this man? On a personal level when finally caught in a series of lies, how does one regain trust? By not doing it again. Yes, Edwards is lying continued with his clandestine meeting at the Beverly Hilton. When does one's credibility dissolve.?

I know women have affairs, in fact in record numbers...but why does it seem that men in power have an inordinate amounts of liaisons. Is it just because there are more men in power? They can't all be that stupid...yet why does the same mistake get repeated over and over again.

For me, the most disappointing part of President Clinton's tenure was his response to the affair with Monica Lewinsky. Word games and half-baked truths hurt his credibility tremendously and stained his legacy. A leader leads, and that means facing the music when it's tough to hear.

In a Washington Monthly article back in 2001 http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html
Charles Black, a GOP consultant with North Carolina ties, readily concedes that "Edwards has got a lot of Bill Clinton in him---without the ethical or moral problems."

Guess he was wrong.

Another lesson I learned was from my corporate years," People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones", but there is no reason why, those houses shouldn't be scrutinized...especially if they belong to our leaders.

To me leadership qualities include: Passion, Empathy, Courage, and Ethics are all top of the list for my leader. Someone who I hope will lead by example. If those qualities are not on our list, we are asking far too little from our leaders.

Comments

[RoloTomassi]

"I know women have affairs, in fact in record numbers...but why does it seem that men in power have an inordinate amounts of liaisons."

That is part fact and part illusion; of course men with greater means and/or in the public eye have more affairs--the number of opportunities is greater, and men are hardwired to pursue sex.

But never make the mistake in believing that we average joes aren't getting busy as well; the opportunities are fewer, but they still arise, and I dare say that the majority of us take advantage of such opportunities.

The heart of this problem is perception, and the absurd insistence that we are more attuned to our self-imposed morality than our animal nature. It's just socio-political hyperbole that we can't seem to get past. As Carlin said, it's just one big stroke job in the USA.

I find it odd that as nation of rats we rejoice in tormenting those among us who steal the cheese and then lie about it.

I love the mantra "dishonesty is a bad thing"; in this country, how can you tell?

[DuPageDem]

"How do we discriminate when we pick friends, spouses or people we choose as leaders?"

Well, some people use the same criteria to choose all three. Voters claimed Bush was the guy they'd rather have a beer with. See how well that worked out?

Me, I'm more focused on leaders' brains and policies than on what they do with their genitals. It's nobody else's concern, as long as consenting adults are involved. Thanks to the tell-all media culture, Edwards and other pols can't bring themselves to advise interviewers on where to stick their microphones when they ask about private matters. It's all been downhill since Willie answered the "boxers or briefs" question. "None of your damn business" was called for.

[jfor]

To err is human, to be a hypocrit is to be a religious human or politician. Take your pick.

[anon004]

I'm not sure that an affair between consenting adults should be equated with domestic violence. Not because affairs are a good thing for a family, far from it. But, I think it diminishes the suffering of domestic violence's victims to say it is a moral or even practical equivalent

Also, if you would like to hold leaders to a certain (higher?) standard, that's up to you. However, John Edwards is no longer a public servant. We can say, what if he was the nominee, what if he was the vice presidential nominee, what if he was still a senator, etc., but he's not. Pilliorying the man now does nothing for his family. I suspect we are all wallowing in this just to make ourselves feel righteous. And that's also immoral behavior.

[Snowball]

As other posters have suggested here, Edwards is but human. That many expect our leaders (shouldn't we refer to them as representatives in a democracy?) to be more than human is problematic. I, for one, do not wish to be governed by supermen.

On another thought, I can think of one politician who has not been rumored to have strayed from his wife, George W. Bush. Is that really a measure of his character and suitability to lead?

Think about it.

[Snowball]

Marriage is an artifice of human society and an historically recent invention at that. It has nothing to do with the natural behavior of the human animal. We are not a monogamous species by nature and constricting morality and artificial rules of conduct imposed by social morays are ultimately destructive to individuals, their relationships and the community as a whole. Ultimately and unsurprisingly, human beings fall short of the unrealistic expectations we impose upon ourselves. Why anybody is surprised by this, I will never understand.

I'm more outraged at the endless hand wringing and judgmental hyper-moralism levied at politicians (strangely only at Democrats, Republicans seem immune) who are caught straying from this quaint, but rigid and oppressive, institution. It's like we are living in a new Victorian era rife with intolerance based in ignorance and mythological views of human behavior.

Politicians have had affairs as long as politics has existed. It used to be considered private, even in more conservative times. An affair has no bearing on the policies or positions that a politician espouses and effects the rest of us not at all. It's those things that should concern us as voters, not baseless and unsupportable estimations of their PR constructed characters.

P.S. M.Y.O.B.

[JBS]

If it matters for Edwards, why doesn't it matter for McCain?

[CitizenE]

My big question is why are you attaching your name to this post and not the ones on Zimbabwe or the Supreme Court? Your other posts reveal topics of weight. Why powerful men run around on their women can be in part answered by two things; men are inordinately, foolishly suckers for sex and many women are inordinately, foolishly attracted to power. This does not necessarily mean that the men and women involved in these things are necessarily good, bad, or indifferent when it comes to being political leaders, any more than let's say handsome Hollywood actors or actresses are bad at what they do. The only thing that is true in our society is if you are American and powerful or a celebrity, somebody has their nose up your butt, and others want their noses there too. The names change, but our rubbenecking and finger wagging never seem to.

[HeevenSteven]

Nailed it!

[clevelandchick]

Great leaders we put on a pedestal today cheated on their wives even during their presidency - JFK, FDR. Their leadership was not harmed or questioned. Of course they didn't have to live with a media that is so obsessed with the private sex lives of everyone and anyone with at least 15 minutes of fame. .

The obsession today's media has with the trivial is a sickness. No politician or celebrity can live up to the hypocritical high mindedness of Americans immersed in the superficial. I don't remember John Edwards crowning himself the 'beacon of hope'. I just remember him talking about the need to get the corporate vultures out of government, the need to create good paying jobs and the need for universal healthcare. I remember his healthcare plan getting the highest marks of any of the candidates by the analysts. Are those platforms somehow wrong now because he had an extramarital affair? Of course not.

John may have referred to his family and faith as strenghths...of course they are and this affair doesn't change that at all. Faith and family isn't just for good times but for when you screw up as well.

[LondonTownNY]

The same people who want to lynch John Edwards now are the same people who never ever speak up and revolt against the mainstream media and our government for the destruction of the American Constitution. So, let's see, the Executive Branch can bend over America and give it to her good and it (Bush/Cheney) get a free pass from the mainstream media but a horny liberal/progressive makes a mistake and our society paints him as some sort of anti-christ. Edwards explanation to Bob Woodruff is good enough for me. Edwards still has a hell of alot more credibility than Bill Clinton ever did. Bill Clinton never had any remorse, tried to blame others for his transgression even though with Bill it was part of a long term pattern of conduct and behavior.

[HeevenSteven]

Edwards is HUMAN. The problem with our leaders is OUR expectaions of them. WE are the ones who need to grow up.

[hopeless277]

There is not one gram of integrity in the entire city of Washington D.C. No Democrat has it, no Republican has it. They are only there to steal. That is the only job of a politician in DC. Stealing from the taxpayer. Obama will do it. McCain and Clinton already have. They and there merry band of thieves steal from the poor and give to the rich. Is boning some skank worse than stealing money from your grandmother? Is it worse than sending young men into battle with no armor to protect them? It must be because if you kill millions you get a God's welcome in China while if you hump some slut, you are roasted alive in public for years. Eventually I will reconcile with the fact that George W. Bush will be richly rewarded for murder, torture, theft, obstruction of justice, and nullifing the entire Constitution of the United States of America. Of course, eventually we will all be wearing brown shirts and shouting 'Hail Hillary'! This ain't your father's America, folks.

[mommamia526]

Tenets, not tenants, please! The problem with christianity as it is proclaimed to be understood, is that you can do anything you want, and then, point a wet indexfinger to the sky here, *he is going forgive you*. Unfortunately, Jesus did not say that. He did say,* you may say, Lord, Lord, and I will say, I never knew you! *On the other hand, those who are coming out in droves to put their ten cents in on John Edwards are pointing fingers and accusing, and, for those of you who are christians, again, Jesus had something to say about that as well: "let he who is without fault cast the first stone*. Enough already. This is such a strange story, let us wait and see if there are other developments, otherwise, yet another guy with a midlife crisis!