There’s No Such Thing as Morality in Politics Anymore
With the news in South Carolina on Saturday, Newt Gingrich’s stock continues to rise. The win in South Carolina came on the heels of an interview of Newt Gingrich’s second wife, Marianne, in which she claimed that after having an affair for six years, he asked her for an open marriage. The news did not put a dent in Gingrich’s support in South Carolina, of course – and even days later, as the news has had the chance to settle in, Gingrich continues to rise in the polls. Why doesn’t news like this – news with serious bearing on the character of a candidate for political office – matter any more?
This change in standards is not limited to Republicans or conservatives, of course (Exhibit A: Clinton, Bill). But as they are the party of the so-called values voter, the fact that the Republican front-runner is an admitted two-time adulterer has a sort of Nixon-to-China feel to it. Congratulations, Newt: you’ve made the party – and perhaps our whole government – safe for philanderers everywhere.
I wonder what this says about us as a polity, and about the standards to which we hold our leaders.
You can, of course, make the argument that personal characteristics have no bearing on a person’s ability to govern. But it is specious to reason that the kinds of failings that make a person likely to violate the trust of a spouse are not linked to the kinds that would cause them to, say, accept a bribe in exchange for a political favor. We may wish only to look to our leaders for “results,” but we do so at our peril; character is what assures us that elected officials will labor to achieve those results (and do so ethically!) rather than use the trappings of office to enrich themselves.
You can also argue that we’re not perfect, and that nobody is free of mistakes made in the past. That is definitely true, and it would be different if Newt were forthright and contrite about past sins. But his exchange with John King during the last South Carolina debate suggests a particularly unnerving lack of remorse – one that does not bode well for his ability to exhibit the kind of self-denial necessary to the duties of public office. More importantly, the audience’s enthusiastic support of him in that moment suggests that the party faithful (and, possibly, many more of us) are perfectly willing to give him a pass on this question. Why?
The reluctant conclusion I’m coming around to: morality is not a meaningful standard in politics any more (if, indeed, it ever was). Put more specifically, questions of character, however much individual voters may care about them, have been entirely eclipsed by questions of party interest. Partisan echo chambers (like a Republican primary debate) set up alternate realities in which the facts are subjugated to the narratives of ideology. In Newt’s case, there does not seem to be a viable alternative candidate that passes all the right litmus tests. Therefore – stay with me on this one – NOTHING that anyone says to impugn his character can be true. The “team sport” nature of our democracy means that moral relativism (and relativism about facts in general) has become a fundamental underpinning of the way we practice politics. Again, this is particularly ironic for a party that prides itself on thinking in terms of absolute truths – but in fact, it is a loss for all of us.
What can we do about it? Being aware of one’s own biases is a good start. Each of us needs to be especially receptive to criticisms of leaders we favor, and willing to question our instincts in the way that we evaluate them. Going further, we need to not be so quick to join the chorus of people on our side (whichever that is) to defend one of those leaders when serious accusations or news about them come to light. In a pluralistic society, we may never have such a thing as a morality to which we can all unreservedly sign on. But even if society cannot collectively have a complete set of moral principles, individual voters can – and they should bring those principles to bear in the way they participate in political discourse.
Personally, I believe that we deserve better than Gingrich; the world of government should not be safe for people like him. I hope that I’ll be able to reach the same conclusion when confronted with similar character issues in a candidate I favor.
There’s nothing wrong with an open marriage, as long as both people are consenting to it. But the fact is that Gingrich didn’t ask his ex-wife for an open marriage – she admitted those were her words. He didn’t want an open marriage; he wanted to continue the affair he had been having with his mistress. That’s an important distinction to make. An open marriage would have meant that Marianne could feel free to have affairs. But can you imagine Gingrich being okay with such a thing?
What I think is interesting is how much coverage this story got after the words “open marriage” came into play (which, in reality, would have been a much more honest way to go about it) as opposed to the press Gingrich has gotten for being an admitted philanderer. Twice. Certainly there were those decrying him before Marianne talked to the press, but they were, at most, a loud minority.
I don’t disagree with the points you made – I think you’re completely right, actually, and I admit this veered a bit off-topic – I just think it’s interesting the way the two words bring up the situation in a new light.
“The reluctant conclusion I’m coming around to: morality is not a meaningful standard in politics any more (if, indeed, it ever was).”
I believe morality was a meaningful standard at one time (with those such as Abraham Lincoln representing the few political leaders of the United States who have little hidden in their lives than can be used as fodder against them – public political views aside), but you are right in that it seems that the Republican party has now seemed to turn a blind eye, nay, endorsed those who are open about their unfaithfulness to their wives.
I was going to make a point on how it seemed in the last century, even Republican presidents whose terms were ineffective at the very least were not philanderers like FDR, JFK, and Clinton. But a quick search online revealed otherwise for a few.
I consider myself a social conservative, but I have learned years ago that the Republican party does not represent me. Neither will the Democrats, but I cannot in good conscience vote for a man like Newt Gingrich. The Republican Party can do better than to proffer someone like that, and it is a shame that South Carolina would endorse him notwithstanding his immorality.
Though I did not like his politics, a recent visit to the Woodrow Wilson museum in Virginia showed me an admirable quality in him: devotion to his wife. After the death of his first wife, he remarked, “Oh, my God, what am I to do?” Though President Obama’s politics do not match my own, I am pleased that he does not have that unfaithful failing which past presidents and current candidates put forward.
Ça nivague, de port-table en portable… À quel quai êtes-vous amarré, vous-même ??
Nick, I would agree with part of this, and disagree with part.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that personal moral matters are irrelevant to modern politics. Not long ago, for example, Anthony Weiner felt compelled to resign from his seat in the House. He had broken no law, and engaged in purely private behavior which he accidentally made public. None of the women he was engaged with said that they felt coerced in anyway. He is still married. And yet, he resigned, even though he was an outspoken and brash member of Congress who was thought of as a future mayoral candidate in New York – in other words, not someone who shirked the spotlight.
However, where I agree with you is where you wrote that “questions of character…have been entirely eclipsed by questions of party interest.” It seems obvious that most so-called moral questions are generally embraced or discarded based on their partisan political usefulness. What happened with Bill Clinton was merely our most high-profile example of that in recent times. His activity with Lewinsky was revealed after literally years of searching by Kent Starr, who was engaging in an open-ended and highly partisan exploration of Clinton’s life. Similarly, Gingrich was able to divert questions about his behavior into a partisan attack on the media which obviously worked with conservatives in South Carolina. The hypocrisy with which moral questions are examined should give us pause when considering their relevance.
And more broadly, I would challenge the idea that such personal indiscretions matter as much as you argue they do. You write that “it is specious to reason that the kinds of failings that make a person likely to violate the trust of a spouse are not linked to the kinds that would cause them to, say, accept a bribe in exchange for a political favor.” But I think that a relationship between such behaviors is difficult to establish. That which motivates action in personal relationships is complicated. Do any of us really know, for example, the nature of Gingrich’s relationship with his former wife, or the nature of the feelings he felt for his current one while the affair went on? Would any of us want our past romantic relationships cross-examined and held up as evidence of our future public and professional behavior?
More importantly, if we want to know what kind of president Gingrich would be, there’s no need to look to his marriages. He was Speaker of the House, and has been a public figure for decades. All the evidence we need about his leadership style and political beliefs can be taken from this ample record.
I am not arguing that personal behavior is irrelevant, especially when it involves criminality. But I think it should be weighed carefully, with full recognition of its potential partisan appeal. And regardless, any individual who runs for a high office should have such a long record of public action trailing them that their personal behavior – especially when it involves something like a personal relationship that none of us were privy to – should be low down on the list of things to look into.
Thanks for the piece, and disagreements welcome,
John