So I just read Megan Carpentier's piece on the John Edwards' affair and possible child and whatnot.

Anyway. I liked a lot of it. But for near the end... where it says something I know, just know, we are going to be hearing a lot more of in the coming days.

"This is the end of the line for John Edwards and his political career, and it should be."

Really? I just want to ask that question for one second. Really?

I agree that "this is the end of the line for John Edwards" because I live and breathe in America, like the rest of us, and this is the likely, nay certain outcome. I also am pretty disappointed (though not too much, because, hey! it happens so often) because I definitely have always liked John Edwards, and his family seems really great, etc.  However, "it should be" the end of his career is basically a statement implying that morally, John Edwards should pay for, or is now deemed unfit for any government role, because he cheated on his seemingly lovely wife (who has cancer) and then lied through his teeth about it for several months.

At times like this (specifically, I mean, think Elliott Spitzer or Bill Clinton), I find myself aghast to find a grand role reversal in the making: me, normally the cynic of cynics, standing on the precipice of the world, watching as the pit fills with ravers (people who are raving mad, not the glow stick type) gathering stones to throw at the sinner, while I betray my core optimism, saying to myself, "it's what human beings do to each other... it's not good or right, but it is the one thing (sex) that people just can't seem to stop lying about.

Ultimately, I guess that the statement "it should be" hearkens back to our Puritanical roots which want perfection out of our leaders. For me, I suppose there is some separation possible-- between what a person does in their personal life and what they do as a public figure, and I don't think that it implies any dichotomy that I find troublesome. Do I think it makes Edwards a really awesome guy? Not necessarily. Do I think that the fact that he is a cheating husband really, at the end of the day, affects his ideas, his mind, or any potential he has for affecting good in the world? Not really-- but then, I don't think  that a person's "moral" character is a trait by which to judge or choose effective politicians either.

What bothers me about our system of choosing is essentially the game we force politicians to play in order to get elected.  We have a need to box people in to this format which makes them palatable to us -- we want "family guys," who are hard workers, who go to church on Sundays. Well, I don't need any of that to begin with. I'm fine with it-- if that's what you really are, but I, unlike about 70% of my fellow citizens, if statistics are correct, would also elect an atheist, were one to ever drop from the sky onto the political scene.

Privately, I'm a traditionalist. I like the idea, and want for myself, a loving, sexually healthy, and honest marriage that stands the test of time. Who, in a marriage, does not? Realistically, and for the wider world, I find it hard to pass judgment on any and all philanderers, because I think it stands to reason that, in the United States of America (if not the world at large), something is indeed, truly wrong in the "sacrament" of marriage.

I do think that our horror of such a commonplace event would be lessened if more public figures were women, and we saw examples of them cheating on their husbands-- because statistics now bear out that men and women are competing for the "least monogamous" title, and who knows how we would feel had it been Elizabeth, not John. An no, I'm not saying that men have it harder-- what I am saying, however, is that the double standard that exists everywhere with regards to gender, exists here too: our need to immediately say "POOR ELIZABETH!!!" -- Hey! I feel bad too, but this is a tough cookie. I don't think she wants or needs the rest of the world telling her what an asshole she married.

Of course, at the end of the day, John is still a total cad. Let no one think I have forgotten that. I haven't. But the thing is, I also try to keep in mind the fact that he is also just a person. No better or worse than me. And should I ever find myself in the Oval Office, and should I ever cheat on my cancer-stricken wife, and should I then go ahead and lie about it, I would hope that people took a minute or two to think before writing the obituary of my career, which, like it or not, takes a lot of work (on the part of both members of the marriage, mind you) and is not immediately negated by a disappointing yet totally common turn of events.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

By the way, I really liked what Megan had to say. It's just that last bit that worries me.

0

You recommended