It has become a stereotypical pattern with men. A lad with a salad-days libido has a girl in every port, plays fast and loose with feelings and breaks hearts. Then he gets older, marries, has a daughter, and becomes very protective. He doesn’t want her dating guys who are just like he was.
What this tells us is that when it’s our ox being gored, reality often becomes crystal clear. Sure, as a young man, dad no doubt rationalized his behavior. But when the object of ravishing eyes is his daughter, he knows what having good character means, why it matters and wants her beau to possess it.
Unfortunately, this pattern is exhibited on a wider scale as well. When Bill Clinton’s dalliances came to light, millions of people circled the wagons for the selfish end of preserving the career of a man who did their political bidding, despite the fact that many of them wouldn’t accept such scandalous behavior in their own lives. “Character doesn’t matter” became a mantra, and deviancy was further defined downwards.
The problem with this attitude is that it increases the chances that America will choose the wrong suitor. And, like that proverbial father, when we’re not blinded by a desire to justify our own misdeeds or those of someone whose cause we’re championing, we know character matters. Isn’t it obvious? Would you want to be pulled over by a policeman who had bad character? How about giving your car to a mechanic with bad character? Would you place your child in the hands of a daycare provider with bad character? If not, why would you consider giving the reins of government – and especially the nuclear button – to a politician with bad character (yes, I know that is almost a redundancy)?
When we ask ourselves these questions, we place the matter in perspective; it becomes clear that character is central to anything one might do. If the matter is a politician, what he espouses may sound good, but on what basis can we assess the probability that he’ll keep his promises and strive to advance our nation and not just himself?
Character.
This is why John Edwards’ affair matters; it is why all politicians’ indiscretions do. As for Edwards, while he is now a private citizen, he recently ran for president and presumably intended to do so again in the future. And, in all cases, a transgression is an important little picture that, when taken together with the other pieces of the metaphorical jigsaw puzzle, reveals the big picture. Thus, I don’t say one sordid event necessarily epitomizes a person’s life, but, nevertheless, it may be a crucial piece, without which the big picture remains indecipherable.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jordan Richardson
Can you tell me why John McCain's grotesque indiscretions seem to matter less than a former candidate's?
2 - Matthew T. Sussman
[Googles "Why John Edwards' affair matters"]
Did you mean: Why John Edwards' affair is overblown
3 - Dan Miller
Jordan,
Please permit to to take a stab at it.
When Mr. Edwards committed his sexual indiscretion, he was seeking the Presidency and was using his wife's very serious illness and her proclaimed loyalty to him to garner votes while diddling someone else. His arrogance and stupidity in doing these things did not suggest that he would be other than arrogant and stupid were he to become the president. Lying about it when caught did not make him seem less arrogant or stupid. Does it matter now? I rather think not. He is burned toast and the less said about, or by, him the better.
Senator McCain's sexual indiscretions were a long time ago, back when he was a young Navy pilot. Although adultery was (and as far as I know still is) an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it was (and possibly remains) quite common*. McCain was not a public figure then; getting caught might have been damaging to his military career but that's about it. He might have been transferred but a court martial would have been quite unlikely. The potential damage was only to him and to his wife -- not really a matter of public interest or concern. Unlike Mr. Edwards, he was was not using his wife for political purposes to attain high public office while diddling someone else. Nor did he lie about these things publicly.
Dan
* I recall an old toast in military circles. "To our wives and sweethearts; may they never meet."
4 - troll
as are most politicians - Edwards is a sociopath...but he and Rielle do make a cute couple
5 - Clavos
Wonder if she's as shallow as he is?
6 - Jordan Richardson
Dan, if the concept here is character, surely McCain's rather soulless incident matters in present context just as much, as does the "cunt" situation.
The notion that it was a "long time ago" doesn't hold much water with me, especially in light of McCain's obvious anger issues. While using one's wife's illness is soulless in just about every way, McCain's less than admirable treatment of his significant others ought to be just as subject to scrutiny. Unfortunately, like his constant babbling and frothing, it isn't.
7 - Clavos
One major difference I see between the two:
temper (and he does have one) and all, McCain at least appears to be trustworthy from my point of view; Edwards does not.
I don't say this based on the recent revelations about Edwards' private life; in fact, in both cases, that's what the philandering is, sick wives and all: private; and IMO, not really relevant to either's performance as a president. We have plenty of previous examples of philandering presidents, some good, some bad.
No, Edwards, ever since he came onto the national stage has, from the start, appeared (to me) to be a complete phony. I remember asking my brother-in-law (an honest, good man, though sadly, a Democrat) nearly a year ago how he could possibly support such an obviously phony candidate. All of Edwards' public persona is an act, and he's a lousy actor; his phoniness clearly shows through, and always has.
McCain is WYSIWYG, flawed as he is.
And that's an important difference to me.
8 - Dr Dreadful
All of this is well and good, but it seems to me to be about as silly and pointless as sending a job interviewee a rejection letter on Monday, finding out that he robbed a bank on Tuesday and then decrying him for being unsuitable for the job on Wednesday.
9 - Clavos
Good point, (and you DO have one), Doc!
10 - Jordan Richardson
McCain is trustworthy? What you see is what you get with him? Hmm...
Even up here in Canada I have my doubts about that philosophy, Clav. Sorry.
There's his whole absolute reversal on Roe v. Wade. There's his issues with Jerry Falwell, which shows a John McCain willing to do just about anything to win, even after decrying the fat sack of crap (rest in peace, of course) as "an agent of intolerance" and then almost literally cozying up to the guy at Liberty University. There's his opposition to the Bush tax cuts and his reversal on that. There's his condemnation of Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly for using "dirty money" to finance the Bush campaign, only to reach out to the Wyly cronies in 2006 for campaign cash. There's his shift on Grover Norquist. There's McCain's flip-flop on torture. There's his gay marriage stance(s) that took all of 11 minutes to shift over on Hardball. There's his opposition to the GI Bill for months and his sudden insistence to take credit for it after it became an inevitability.
The fact of the matter is that the John McCain running for office in 2008 is a completely fucking different person than the John McCain running for office in 2000.
How do you manage to trust this man, Clavos?
11 - troll
Dreadful - Edwards is only incidental to the article which in the end is an attack on Obama's questionable character...one of Duke's less shrill and more reasoned and 'pointful' partisan pieces imo
12 - Clavos
"Reversals" and "flip-flops" are a politician's stock in trade, Jordan. Obama is certainly doing his share of them these days, as well.
Would you really want a politico who took a stance and refused to revise it -- ever? If so, when was the last time you saw one who didn't change his/her stances? I have no problem with McCain (or any politician) changing points of view; if I don't like the change, they may lose my vote (if they had it in the first place), but I don't consider that a lack of trustworthiness.
My point was that, McCain is open about where he stands, he's not secretive and totally phony (and oily) like Edwards.
13 - Jordan Richardson
I would consider decrying someone from a moral standpoint only to go back and beg them for campaign money later as a significant problem, regardless of who does it. That's not a simple flip-flop and it doesn't help me trust the candidate.
I have no dog in this fight. I couldn't care less about Obama, McCain, Edwards, or whatever other Tooth Fairy you guys want to elect in America. But I do know hypocrisy and double-speak when I see it and I find it amazing that most McCain supporters seem to be absolutely oblivious to shortcomings and obvious problems that, had they occured on behalf of "the other guy," would be absolutely damning.
You've decided in your heart of hearts that McCain is "open about where he stands," even if he's standing somewhere else 11 minutes later. Well shit, at least you know, right?
Personally that doesn't help me out in the Trust Department.
14 - Clavos
Jordan, you say:
But I do know hypocrisy and double-speak when I see it...
From Merriam-Webster Online:
"Main Entry:
hy·poc·ri·sy
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural hy·poc·ri·sies
Etymology:
Middle English ypocrisie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide â€" more at certain
Date:
13th century
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion2: an act or instance of hypocrisy"
Describes Edwards to a tee.
McCain is not "feigning" anything. The truth is, it's not his "hypocrisy" you don't like, Jordan; it's his politics, then OR now.
Same source:
"doublespeak
Main Entry:
dou·ble·speak
Function:
noun
Date:
1952
: language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth; also : gobbledygook
â€" dou·ble·speak·er Listen to the pronunciation of doublespeaker -ˌspē-kər noun"
Again, a far better description of Edwards than of McCain.
Chacun a son gout, Jordan.
Why is it that every time one defends one aspect or issue about someone on these threads, he's immediately seen by all and sundry as a supporter of that individual?
I am not a McCain supporter, Jordan. Like you, I have no dog in this fight. I don't vote for dogs.
I'll probably write in Diogenes' name.
15 - Jordan Richardson
Clavos,
My comments about hypocrisy and double-speak had more to do with McCain supporters willing to endlessly chastise Obama for "changing positions" while ignoring the obvious problems with their own candidate than it did with John McCain himself. It's more of a general statement and I am not referring to you specifically. I realize you are not a McCain supporter.
The whole statement of mine you partially quote delivers that thought:
But I do know hypocrisy and double-speak when I see it and I find it amazing that most McCain supporters seem to be absolutely oblivious to shortcomings and obvious problems that, had they occured on behalf of "the other guy," would be absolutely damning.
Whether hypocrisy and double-speak applies to John McCain and/or John Edwards was not of my concern. Instead, I'm concerned with the idea of "trustworthiness" you generously afford to McCain. As I've repeated, I don't see it. And I don't see a need to measure him against another man, like John Edwards, who isn't even in the race anymore.
Instead, if anything, voters in the United States should be measuring McCain against Obama directly and not against hasbeen candidates.
With that in mind, what is it about John McCain that makes him more trustworthy to you than Barack Obama?
As an outsider, I'm trying to understand how John McCain can conceivably be seen as more trusthworthy than Obama by any intelligent, educated American.
16 - Sam weaver
Being an addict would affect ones judgment in business or politics. John Edwards does not have any history of sexual addiction. His sexual indiscretion has nothing to do with the ability to lead. If that were the case, the world would have been deprived of many business and political leaders. My problem with Edwards is the fact that he made poor decisions in the aftermath of the situation. In the heat of fire, he lacks the ability to look credible. That is a very important factor when leading. There is no way he could look a Vladimir Putin in the eye and play a game of political poker. Bill Clinton actually did a better job of handling the Lewinsky situation. We do not elect priests or nuns, we elect men and women who have personal lives. This over the top moralization of our leaders is too much. The only people he screwed up with were his wife and family. I do believe that he would say or do anything not to hurt them anymore than he has already. Hopefully, that does not include illegal activities. What Edwards did has been going on sinse the begginning of mankind, except in 2008 there is a massive number of news outlets, You Tube, tabloids, and a gazillion political bloggers.
17 - Joanne Huspek
WYSIWYG? Yes, true to a point.
It could also be what you will put up with is what you get. If you have lowered your standards, can you really be surprised with "naughty" behavior?
This is true in the private sector as well as for the government.
Perhaps we as a society should consider raising the bar a bit, instead of putting up with a lack of character.
18 - bliffle
I don't care about John Edwards - he's not in the campaign.
I'm interested in McCain and Obama, and I don't think dalliance is horribly bad, especially since mere men are so easily seduced.
The bad aspect of McCains affair with Christy is that his wife had been enduring for McCain and he treated her rather rudely. She had cancer and he dumped her cruelly (if you compare to Edwards you notice that Edwards didn't dump his wife). IIRC, McCain left his wife without finances and Ross Perot paid her expenses.
That's pretty raw.
But maybe that's OK for a president, who may have to make some hard-hearted decisions. Hopefully for reasons better than his own libido.
I fault McCain for surrendering to Bush so easily in 2000. What happened to his feistyness? What happened to that maverick? It blew away like a puff of smoke when confronted by Bushian Bluster.
IMO, people voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 because of his bluster. His willingness to declare himself faultless and accuse others. IMO, voters saw this as a good thing in international relations.
McCain folded. Unless he's changed he'll lose again.
19 - Baronius
Jordan, are you sure that you don't have a dog in this fight? You've been as reliable as anyone on BC in your support of Obama. I don't recall a negative word about the Dem, or a positive one about the Republican candidate.
I think I'm with Clavos on this one. The affair doesn't tell me anything about Edwards' character that I hadn't already assumed. That character excludes him from the presidency in my eyes. I don't think this story reflects anything bigger than the end of Edwards' career.
20 - Jordan Richardson
Jordan, are you sure that you don't have a dog in this fight? You've been as reliable as anyone on BC in your support of Obama. I don't recall a negative word about the Dem, or a positive one about the Republican candidate.
I do tend to have left-leanings in terms of my personal philosophy, so I suppose it's natural that I would lean towards a Dem in the United States election as opposed to a Republican. Seeing as how America is "two party state," it's hard not to side with Obama almost by default. I simply don't agree with much of what the GOP stands for. I guess if I had to, I might wind up casting a vote for the Green Party.
In terms of actual support regarding Obama, I'm not so sure. Simply not saying anything bad about a particular candidate doesn't account to an endorsement, as far as I know.
21 - Jordan Richardson
Unless you guys have a socialist party...
22 - Baronius
That wouldn't rightly explain why you find Obama to be so admirable, and why you dislike McCain. This goes to the heart of the article. Do we base our support on the ideology or the character of the candidate? (I guess we should add experience to the list as well.)
23 - Jordan Richardson
That wouldn't rightly explain why you find Obama to be so admirable, and why you dislike McCain.
I'm no political expert, but why doesn't that explain why I would sooner vote for Obama than I would for McCain?
In picking the "lesser of two evils," I find myself agreeing more but never entirely with the policies of the Democrats, as I said. I also said that I'd sooner vote for another party altogether. I do suppose that if John McCain were a Democrat, I'd vote for him regardless of how articulate Obama was.
24 - El Bicho
"McCain is trustworthy? What you see is what you get with him?"
Yup, you can trust McCain is just like any other politician who changes his position when it's politically expedient.
25 - Baritone
Most of McCain's shifts have been made since he threw his hat into the presidential ring this time around. Does that sound like a true change of conscience or political opportunism? Again, it seems that nobody gives a shit because McCain is a "straight talker."
Obama shifts some positions and he's suddenly a soulless flip-flopper.
Duke had me for the most part until he turned it into a slam against Obama - making all the same bullshit charges against him that have been paraded out by Obama's detractors with the same half truths and obfuscating language.
Duke destroys the entire thrust of his article by turning it all, in the end, against Obama and in so doing, through his long winded supposed high minded set up, equating Obama's character with Edwards' pecadillo. Duke revealed his own penchant for political sleeze.
B