Another mighty one has fallen. That's right, he stepped out on his wife, who had been diagnosed with incurable breast cancer, and may or may not have fathered a love child.
What is with these people?!
John Edwards.
Eliot Spitzer.
Mark Foley.
Larry Craig.
Duke Cunningham.
Newt Gingrich.
David Vitter.
Gary Hart.
...John McCain
And, of course, the big one: President Bill Clinton.
Can you conceive of the arrogance required to believe you were the best person to represent your party in a critical presidential election while you're cheating on your cancer-stricken wife? Can you imagine if he was the nominee right now? It's terrifying to me to think about just how little we actually know about these politicians who run the world.
What does this actually tell us about these people? Are their personal lives our business? Bill Clinton was an excellent president, his personal failings aside, but what about trust? We know that these folks are willing to break sacred oaths, so how do we know they won't break their oath of office? The worst part is the hypocrisy. “I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen,” said Edwards in 1999. And don't get me started on some of those Republican cheaters, who spend half their lives trying to think of ways to inconvenience gay people and then get caught tapping their feet under the stall.
So how do you McCain supporters feel about his admitted infidelities? Does time heal all wounds? Or do you, like Sean Hannity, float him a pass because he was a POW? Are you at least squirming a little bit, the way us Democrats squirmed through Lewinsky-gate?
This is how I feel: you have to consider candidates/politicians as a total package. There are issues of integrity to political issues as well as personal integrity, and, to me, the former is most important for elected officials. Take Mitt Romney as an example: by all accounts, he is a paragon of personal integrity, but in terms of his politics, you could make a convincing case that he lacks conviction, integrity and core beliefs and follows the prevailing political winds. The same could be said for a post-2000 John McCain. The same could never be said about Fred Thompson, or Russ Feingold, or a number of centrists who break from the party line about issues that are important to them.
If Bill was running against Hillary, I'd vote for Hillary, because while their politics are essential identical, he's shown a monstrous personal failing, as well as a disrespect for the office of President. If Bill was running against Dubya, I'd campaign for Bill, because Bill's problems pale in comparison to the Bush administration's actual failures. (On a side note, I get such a kick out of those who criticize Obama and his supporters for being a part of a "cult of personality". When I hear that, all I can think of is George W. Bush.)
"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Rev. 3:16) I would rather have a politician who I disagreed with on many issues, but who had a coherent belief structure and fought for it - in other words, who stood for something, then a politician who I agree or disagree with depending on the time of day or the most recent lobbyist meeting. When it comes to personal life, I'd rather have a politician who shows respect and love for their families, and, when and if mistakes are made, owns up to them and doesn't do it again. Both are important, but when it comes down to it, the latter issues takes the gold medal.
The Value of Not Cheating On Your Flippin' Wife
Posted by Unknown on 8/13/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I think we tend to have short-term memories when it comes to politicians and their infidelities. I remember when the Monica scandal broke and how everyone hated Clinton and went on about how he was such a scumbag and could never be trusted or respected again. At that time, the scandal was so huge that it might have been hard to believe that he would go on to become one of the most-respected presidents we've seen in recent times, at least in regards to what he accomplished politically, not personally. I still think he's a moral scumbag, but the guy did a decent job as president and those of us outside the US view him as an excellent diplomat, which is more than I can say for Dubya. But I have to say that if I had a daughter who was a Whitehouse intern, I'd rather she spend long evenings and weekends working with Dubya.
I love the excuse Edwards used for his affais. His wife was in REMISSION at the time of his affair. I'm sure that's a comfort to her now that she knows her breast cancer is incurable. She's standing by her man, but it's sad that he couldn't even stand by her long enough to make it through what was a pretty short remission.
I'll give McCain this: he's owned up fully to his affairs, which happened long ago. He hasn't tried to cover them up. However, I wonder if he tried to cover them up at the time? I've heard things here and there about how he and Cindy lied about their relationship, even lied about their ages to each other. Neither of those things would be so terrible if it wasn't for the fact he was married to another woman. So hopefully John M. isn't pulling a John E. because if it's true that he and Cindy are now apart a lot of the time because of work, I'm sure the temptations are presenting themselves. Hopefully he's gotten wiser in his "old age." :)
When the Spitzer scandal broke and now the Edwards scandal, the political analysts predicted that the political careers of these guys were finished. But time has a way of healing political wounds caused by sex scandals and so I wouldn't be surprised if Edwards is someday able to run for president at age 71 and people will look back on this scandal the same way they look at McCain's infidelities now: that it was in the past and so we'll give the guy another chance. Just as people have gotten over the shock of Monica's cigar and blue dress, years from now people might say, "Oh well, his wife was in REMISSION." Sad, but true.
So the way things are going, Michelle might want to consider having Barack on a leash.
Darn it. I wanted to write a post about this, and you beat me to it. ;) I guess that when it comes down to it, I feel pretty much the same way. I am sickened by all the infidelity (both Republicans and Democrats). The hypocrisy only makes it worse. All things being equal, I would prefer to kick out adulterous politicians. But, like you said, "you have to consider candidates/politicians as a total package".
No, I don't give McCain a free pass for cheating on his first wife. I'll be holding my nose when voting for him, and his affairs are one big reason why. I campaigned hard for Romney when I had a chance. Obama appears to have more integrity in this area, and that appeals to me, but I just can't vote for his policies. My vote for McCain is really more of a vote against Obama.
On the news, I heard a Democrat say this about the Edwards affair and Edwards' future in politics: "But he still cares about poverty". I thought, "Oh, he's an adulterous liar, but he still cares about poverty so that makes everything okay? We just don't even care about fidelity or integrity anymore?". Then I realized that I am going to cast my vote for an admitted adulterer, so in a sense, I am no different than the Democrat on t.v. It really makes me sad. I wish I had more options (I did, and I voted for him even though he had already dropped out of the race). But, it makes me sad that adultery is so widespread and so accepted (sure, in the short term everyone condemns, but in the long-term people "forget" or really don't care that much) that it isn't even a factor for most people. And for those of us that it is a factor, other issues trump. Sad state of our nation, IMO.
Also, I think I would like the title of your post a little better if it said something like "The Value of [Flippin' You] Not Cheating On Your Wife", thus putting the emphasis of the psuedo F-word on the cheater and not on the wife. (Just a suggestion)
I think we tend to forget that political success doesn't always correspond with high personal morality. The phenomenon of political leaders having extramarital affairs goes back hundreds of years (actually, thousands!). Let me just throw out some examples: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, President Garfield, President Cleveland, President Harding, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and obviously President Clinton. Then there is President Andrew Jackson who married a woman who wasn't divorced from her first husband yet.
From older examples we have King David and Solomon from the Old Testament, and there is always King James. King James was the British King that our Church teaches was "inspired" to compile the King James Version of the Bible. Anyway, he was rather famously homosexual (even having a secret passage from his bedroom to the bedroom of Duke George Villiers discovered after his death). This didn't prevent him from being married and having 7 children however.
Now, according to Church doctrine, we know that at least Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and King James were all inspired by God, so I don't think it's fair to claim that other modern leaders cannot be good leaders if they cheat on their spouse, dispicable as it is. Edwards in particular has brought greater attention to the issue of poverty in America, and has proposed some of the best ideas for solving this problem that I have heard in a long time. Inspired? It's not impossible.
So, john, do you find fidelity completely irrelevant in political leaders? Is it conceivable that good leaders could have been even better had they remained faithful? Sure, they may have been inspired in some ways, but is it possible they could have been much more inspired? The Lord works with what He has, but we can only hear the Spirit whispering if we are worthy.
What I really want to know is how leaders like this have time for cheating. I can imagine that they are so busy that it would be hard to find time to be with their own wives. I'm not too happy about electing and paying people who spend their time in these "activities".
I also have to add Joseph Smith to that list, not in the same sense, however. I know that most of us believe that he was instructed by God to take extra wives, one of them being an approximately 14 year-old girl, and so although we perhaps can't label it as an "extra-marital affair" in the traditional sense, he did lie to both Emma and the gov't about practising polygamy, not to mention the fact that it was also hidden from the rest of the Church for some time. Still, it's hard to deny that he was inspired by God because of the amazing things that he accomplished in his lifetime. I think the man will always be an enigma to me in many ways.
fd, where is the info that Joseph lied to Emma?
Haven't you read "Rough Stone Rolling?" If I remember correctly, he kept it hidden from her with the first wife. She went along willingly later but then changed her mind and it caused a great deal of tension in their marriage. Unfortunately I loaned the book to a friend, so I don't have it on me. Perhaps someone else does?
For the most part, I do find the personal life of politicians to be irrelevant. Perhaps if that personal life directly effects the public (and not just in theory such as "he's setting a bad example"), I would reconsider.
As to the Spirit whispering to our political leaders, I find that to be highly unlikely either way. First of all, all of mankind have the light of Christ, but only worthy members of the Church who have received the ordinance of baptism followed by the receipt of the Holy Ghost have access to the Holy Spirit. If a politician has not received this ordinance, than the Holy Ghost may testify of things that are true, but he does not receive guidance by the Spirit otherwise (although he may guided by the light of Christ).
Unfortunately, even if the Spirit is guiding us, this doesn't guarantee righteousness, hence the occasional Bishop or Stake President that cheats on his wife, or leaves the Church to join a polygamous group, etc.
One of the big ironies that I see in this issue is the question of morality. For instance, many on the right view Bill Clinton as the ultimate immoral politician because of his affair. These same individuals see no immorality in politicians that authorize the use of torture, the detainment of individuals with no charges, no trials, and no time frame for release. They also do not see it as immoral to kill over 300,000 civilians in the course of a pre-emptive war that is directly leading to more terrorist attacks and recruitment (at least according to every single branch of the U.S. intelligence community). In my opinion, it is clear which is the greater violation of morality, being that one effects the politician, his family and the one involved in the affair, while the other directly affects the life of whole nations (both theirs and ours)... This indictment is not just focused on Bush by the way, Romney was one of the most hardline of the Republican candidates in regards to the use of torture, detainment of individuals with no charges, the war, etc.
In short, rather than spending our time and energy focusing on the personal failures in a politicians life, I think we as the public should focus on those issues which directly effect our domestic and international policies. Perhaps our nation would be more perfect had Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin not participated in extramarital affairs, perhaps our authorized version of the Bible would be more accurate had King James been straight and faithful to his wife, but we must never forget that this world is made up of human beings, and human beings are not perfect. You may have heard the saying that "The Church is perfect, but the people aren't". I believe the same principle can apply to politics. A policy may be successful and right, even if the personal life of the one's advocating them aren't. Imagine if we assumed that tithing was a bad doctrine simply because a Bishop who is caught cheating on his wife advocated it.
As to having time to cheat, this particular case involving Edwards involved a woman from his political career (former campaign worker to be precise), and the same is true of Bill Clinton (you may remember Lewinsky worked as an intern in the White House). Unfortunately, the very fact that these men were working and thereby spending time away from their wives may have led to the affairs to begin with. It isn't a matter of having time to go off committing affairs willy nilly.
By the way, I am on the left, but I'm not saying these things simply to defend those on my side of politics. As was mentioned before, there are many instances of extramarital affairs from both sides of the political spectrum. Even politically active Christian leaders, like Ted Haggard, have fallen victim to human error. Of course, Haggard was hiring gay prostitutes and doing drugs, so this does in fact effect his political stance, since prostitution and drugs are illegal, as well as the fact that he was fighting gay rights issues at the time.
Spirituality and personal morality do not directly correspond with great political policies.
As to sources for the fact that Joseph Smith kept his other marriages a secret, Rough Stone Rolling has numerous accounts. His first marriage and Emma's reaction when she found out are found on page 326 and continues into page 327. On page 498 it references an instance in which Emma poisoned Joseph Smith after finding out about more marriages that he was keeping secret, and then Joseph and Emma did not participate in Temple ordinances that night because they were too upset with each other.
Also read from the bottom of page 490 and onto page 496, as it speaks of other marriages that were kept secret from Emma.
As to the Mormon myth that has arisen in recent years, the book points out that sexual relationships did exist between Joseph and his plural wives, although no evidence exists for those who were married to other men at the time they were married to Joseph (page 439).
I have "Rough Stone Rolling" but haven't read it through. I just read the pages and accounts that you (john) talk about, but it doesn't say that all of those statements you made are facts.
His first marriage and Emma's reaction when she found out.
The account of "Emma finding out" was from Ann Eliza, who wasn't born yet. I agree that Joseph married women without Emma knowing, but I am not sure that the "marriage" was much more than an arrangement. Although some of the women/girls lived in the home, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Joseph actually slept with any of the girls. In fact, after having no children when "married" to Joseph, two of them went on to marry other men and have 9 children each. In his teachings, he clearly distinguished between "authorized celestial marriages" and "the illegal practice of bigamy". In reading all of these pages you recommended (plus several more around them), I don't really see any evidence that what he was doing was bigamy.
That's not to say that other people perverted that doctrine and practiced bigamy, but for the part of Joseph - what he preached and what he practiced - it seems pretty consistent, IMO.
My personal opinion is that the whole issue was an Abrahamic test for Joseph and Emma and others who were asked to live it. Joseph made it clear that it was only to be practiced when authorized.
On page 498 it references an instance in which Emma poisoned Joseph Smith after finding out about more marriages that he was keeping secret.
One theory is that she poisoned him because of how violently he vomited, but he "was susceptible to vomiting anyway" and did the same thing on another occasion, so I don't think there is enough evidence to say that she poisoned him.
the book points out that sexual relationships did exist between Joseph and his plural wives, although no evidence exists for those who were married to other men at the time they were married to Joseph
I think this is even a stretch to what the book is saying. The book says "nothing indicates that sexual relations were left out of plural marriages", but it also doesn't give any evidence that sexual relations were included in these marriage besides possibly one: years late, one person said that he spent the night with one woman after the wedding, but "for the most part, the women went about their business as before". He wasn't lustful, didn't romance. He didn't seem interested in that - he was driven by forming these family connections. "Joseph himself said nothing about sex in these marriages".
Also, the book says that several years later, a few people claimed paternity by Joseph, but there isn't any evidence that any of his plural wives bore him children. I would think that if he really was sleeping with all of these women, there would be lots of children. And there isn't even one. I'm actually a descendent of one of his plural wives - but from a different husband. If Joseph really was about the sex, why would he marry women who were married to other men and go through the ceremony if that was it? I think that his own explanations seem to make the most sense.
Actually, I want to read more of this book because the whole polygamy situation is starting to make a whole lot more sense to me now. I'll grant that Joseph didn't tell Emma each time he "married" a wife, but I wouldn't call him an adulterer. I would compare it more to my husband buying a car without asking me - big, he definitely shouldn't do it without my involvement, but not the same as if he slept with someone.
In fact, in reading this, it honestly looks to me like Emma overreacted. It looks like it was a real Abrahamic test for her. Just my opinion, of course.
If you're interested in Church history, you might also want to check out "Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" by B.H. Roberts, and also "Porter Rockwell" by Richard Lloyd Dewey. The Porter Rockwell book is actually more Church history than it is Porter Rockwell biography, but the notes section in the back of the book is the best resource on Church history in the entire book.
Anyway, Bushman's book isn't the only source on this subject. Of course you are entitled to form your own opinions regarding Joseph Smith and his relationships to his plural wives, especially when the evidence comes from sources that can't be validated. One thing to remember, however, is that by questioning some things you inadvertantly question others. For instance, by questioning the testimonies given about Joseph Smith having children from his plural wives, or even having sexual relationships with them, you inadvertantly question Church teachings prior to the manifesto. In particular, Brigham Young.
I served in the Nauvoo stake for a total of 1 year while in my mission. In antique book stores you can still come across the booklets that LDS missionaries used to give out to members of the Reorganized Church in the area. They are complete with sworn testimonies from Joseph Smith's plural wives that they did in fact have sexual relationships. At the time, the RLDS Church was arguing that our Church was apostate due to the practice of polygamy, claiming that Joseph Smith never lived or taught the principle and that it was a creation of Brigham Young. This is why the Church put so much energy into trying to prove that Joseph Smith did in fact have sexual relationships with plural wives, and that they were not just "friendships" or arrangements for marriage in the after life, etc.
You should definately read the entire book however, as reading the few pages I pointed doesn't do justice to the complex man that Joseph Smith was, or the complex issues involved.
As to the poisoning incident, the other occasion that you mention has been claimed in Church teachings and Church history as an attempt to take Smith's life by poison, so although Bushman is referencing in an objective way, such as saying Joseph Smith was prone to vomiting, our Church has made the claim this was in fact poisoning and uses it as evidence of opposition to the Prophet and his teaching.
That said, Church history is not political discourse, so I apologize for getting off the topic. =)
I think many people use a candidate's sexual misdeeds as a convenient excuse for not supporting him/her, while there are usually other reasons that really drive voting behavior. If this weren't true, those who so openly criticized Bill Clinton would be voting for Barack Obama rather than John McCain the Adulterer, and we all know that won't happen.
Mike is right - you have to consider politicians as a whole package, and when it comes right down to it, most of the time the candidate's personal life just isn't the deciding factor. What Bill Clinton did was despicable, but I would vote for him again in a second if I had the chance, especially when compared the nonsense we've been putting up with for the last eight years with Wholesome George.
For instance, by questioning the testimonies given about Joseph Smith having children from his plural wives, or even having sexual relationships with them, you inadvertantly question Church teachings prior to the manifesto. In particular, Brigham Young.
True, true. I think I have the Joseph Smith part of polygamy figured out. I am still working on Brigham Young and others because they obviously and openly had "relations" with many wives.
I agree that there are certain things we will never know 100% concerning Joseph's relationship with his plural wives. I agree that many of them appear to be "spiritual wives" and although no one will ever be able to prove that he didn't have sexual relations with some of them, it's just my personal opinion that the evidence points to otherwise.
Stephanie, if your husband took another wife -- even non-sexually -- and you felt about it the same way as if he bought a car without asking you, then my hat's off to you. :)
It certainly appears that Emma was kept in the dark about at least some of the wives. This bothers me because I always wanted to believe that the first wife had a say in polygamy. As well, if you read towards the end of "Rough Stone Rolling," it's really hard not to have immense compassion for Emma. I don't think that she just overreacted. I think she was treated harshly by Brigham Young in particular, and to be honest, I think Emma got a raw deal. Although I believe that Joseph loved her, she really had little, if any, say in the matter of polygamy. I think that Brigham utterly lacked compassion for her situation throughout polygamy and after Joseph had died.
I think it's beautiful that we've gone the route of Joseph Smith's plural wives on this one - nice way to Make this PoliticaLDS!!!
Stephanie, I have done LOTS of research on this subject - and in most of the instances, It is pretty certian that they did have sex - that they were "husband and wife in every sense of the word" to paraphrase Eliza Snow. Rough Stone Rolling is a good book - I think Bushman is uncomfortable with the idea that Joseph had sex with married women (gasp, even women that were married to active priesthood holders) - - but the evidence points otherwise. The fact is, Joseph was having alot of solicited sex with his wives (legal? not according to the US govt). And some of them were married to his friends. Also, Stephanie, you mentioned that he wasn't out courting and stuff - well, there too, the evidence points otherwise. (there is a story where, I believe, Sidney Rigdon's daughter is courted quite persistantly by Joseph, and she turned him down flat.) Now I'm dropping this there, becuase we could go an entirely different direction - suffice it to say, I've gained a testimony that what Joseph did, he did under the direction of God, and it was highly misunderstood by pretty much everyone besides him. Unfortunate for Emma, unfortunate for Brigham, unfortunate for all of the others
Back to topic - I really like what John said - but John, the list goes on - All the Greek politicians, philosophers and scientists were married, but kept their wives under lock and key at home, while having sex with little boys. The Romans were no better (maybe less homo-erotic, but still totally unfaithful) - Muslim leaders have been poplygamous from the get go, so there isn't alot to say about them...but the fact is, that increase in power = increase in sex appeal - that's just the way it is. And since They're men with no eternal perspective, what do we do?
I don't like politicians - not mccain, obama, or any other - not because the vast majority of them cheat on their wives from time to time (I'd love to get an honest, annonymous cross section of US politicians and see what percent) - but because they are, almost with out exception, powerhungry and immoral in everysense - not above lying, cheating, digging a pit for their neighbor - they prove this before any election - during the mud slinging campeigns that precede the elections. And if they fail to comply by the amoral rules set out by our world for acheiving political power, they ussually don't get anywhere. (I know, I sound pessimistic - oh well, I am on this topic)
But, in the rare occasion that someone totally moral is able to secure public office, they often make the biggest difference in the world.
I think it's beautiful that we've gone the route of Joseph Smith's plural wives on this one - nice way to Make this PoliticaLDS!!!
Stephanie, I have done LOTS of research on this subject - and in most of the instances, It is pretty certian that they did have sex - that they were "husband and wife in every sense of the word" to paraphrase Eliza Snow. Rough Stone Rolling is a good book - I think Bushman is uncomfortable with the idea that Joseph had sex with married women (gasp, even women that were married to active priesthood holders) - - but the evidence points otherwise. The fact is, Joseph was having alot of solicited sex with his wives (legal? not according to the US govt). And some of them were married to his friends. Also, Stephanie, you mentioned that he wasn't out courting and stuff - well, there too, the evidence points otherwise. (there is a story where, I believe, Sidney Rigdon's daughter is courted quite persistantly by Joseph, and she turned him down flat.) Now I'm dropping this there, becuase we could go an entirely different direction - suffice it to say, I've gained a testimony that what Joseph did, he did under the direction of God, and it was highly misunderstood by pretty much everyone besides him. Unfortunate for Emma, unfortunate for Brigham, unfortunate for all of the others
Back to topic - I really like what John said - but John, the list goes on - All the Greek politicians, philosophers and scientists were married, but kept their wives under lock and key at home, while having sex with little boys. The Romans were no better (maybe less homo-erotic, but still totally unfaithful) - Muslim leaders have been poplygamous from the get go, so there isn't alot to say about them...but the fact is, that increase in power = increase in sex appeal - that's just the way it is. And since They're men with no eternal perspective, what do we do?
I don't like politicians - not mccain, obama, or any other - not because the vast majority of them cheat on their wives from time to time (I'd love to get an honest, annonymous cross section of US politicians and see what percent) - but because they are, almost with out exception, powerhungry and immoral in everysense - not above lying, cheating, digging a pit for their neighbor - they prove this before any election - during the mud slinging campeigns that precede the elections. And if they fail to comply by the amoral rules set out by our world for acheiving political power, they ussually don't get anywhere. (I know, I sound pessimistic - oh well, I am on this topic)
But, in the rare occasion that someone totally moral is able to secure public office, they often make the biggest difference in the world.
Hey Mike....don't forget San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom! He cheated on his wife and it wasn't even on all the local news stations! And now he's running for governor of California. Some say he'll make a bid for president one of these years, so keep him on your radar (nevermind that he should already be on everyone's To Watch list because his specality is breaking the law by making laws that contradict the constitution and/or stir up debates)
increase in power = increase in sex appeal
Hmm. I don't know. The thing that attracts me the most to my husband is his great humility. Then again, I probably don't represent the "average" person.
But, in the rare occasion that someone totally moral is able to secure public office, they often make the biggest difference in the world.
Totally agree. Interesting way to look at it.
Oh, please don't tell me Gavin Newsom is running for governor of CA. Pardon me while I go puke.
Post a Comment