Just a few days ago, the subject of the most recent high-profile adultery scandal, this time involving David Petraeus, came up in discussion amongst some friends of mine. I had been largely apathetic to this news, since this sort of thing has been known to happen on about a yearly basis to various important people. Interestingly enough, the conversation skewed in the direction of not particularly caring about adultery in politics at all. This made me think a bit and has resulted in a bit of confusion. Why is it that America demands that its politicians resign or be impeached over an act that is perfectly legal?
The United States typically has a very conservative, puritanical Christian view of interpersonal relationships and sexuality in general. We often flinch at expressions of sexuality that don’t fit our sculpted world view and the political arena is no exception. Adultery could be seen as one of these, as well as bi- or homosexuality. Both of these often eliminate a candidate’s ability to become elected or re-elected, sometimes for life. It’s a miracle that candidates who express alternative sexuality (like the recently elected Tammy Baldwin) can even become viable.
Now, I understand that adultery and homosexuality are two completely different things with completely different implications for the morality of a person. Whether or not it impedes the ability of a political figure to do their job, though, is largely irrelevant. Petraeus, as a special case, was probably right to resign as the head of the CIA, given that he had access to extremely classified information and could not afford to divulge national secrets due to blackmail or even a slip of the tongue. However, politicians such as John Edwards had no such problems when their own scandals broke. Perhaps Edwards deserved to lose his position based on the fact that he did blatantly lie to his constituents when asked if he was the father of his mistress’ baby, but this was largely due to the stigma against extramarital affairs in politics in the first place.
Funnily enough, I can’t think of an instance in which having an affair would actively impede the ability of a candidate to govern effectively. If they’re good at their job, I say let them stay in office. The Italians, for instance, were willing to forgive far greater indiscretions on the part of the somehow well-loved Silvio Berlusconi who has recently been convicted of tax evasion for the fourth time. Whether or not he was any good at his job, however, is another discussion entirely. Bill Clinton is a good example of this, staying on as president for another two years after the infamous Monica Lewinsky scandal came to light. It’s hard to argue he was a bad president, leaving America with a budget surplus and leading the longest period of peacetime economic growth in American history.
I will even go so far as to say that politicians who, after vehemently denouncing homosexuality, go on to be caught in extramarital homosexual relationships, should be forgiven their indiscretions. Whether or not they can be comfortable holding a position that they obtained by campaigning against this kind of relationship is entirely for them to decide. Overall, if it doesn’t affect their ability to govern, this sort of thing should be a non-issue, and certainly not one that causes them to be forced out of office.
Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
