Ross on McMarriage

Ross Douthat responds to queries about John McCain's mistreatment of his first wife:

As for my view of the matter - well, I tend to agree with James Poulos that an America in which politicians had a more difficult time recovering from flagrant private misbehavior would be a better place to live and vote and marry in. It's not that I think an adulterer can't be an effective political leader; it's that I'd like to see the social costs of sexual misconduct go up, at least on the margins, and having certain avenues to prominence closed off to you if you decide to ditch your family and take up with a younger, richer, healthier woman seems like a reasonable cost to impose on would-be divorcees. All of that said, though, we're obviously a long, long way from that state of affairs, and things being what they are, I'm not going to argue that social conservatives should deliver the White House to Obama in order to make a futile protest against the decline of masculine honor among our politicians.

That's cogently argued. But note that it's a cogently argued brief for the view that cultural conservatives ought to deploy the marital indiscretions of liberal politicians as a political issue while ignoring the indiscretions of conservative politicians. Just note that what looks like hypocrisy from the outside can often have a perfectly coherent explanation to the believers.

Comments

Adverb: cogently kowjuntlee

1. In a cogent manner; forcibly; convincingly; conclusively.

Still want to use it for what Ross said?

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 2:39 PM

Ross is a hypocrite of astronomical proportions. Deep in his heart he knows that what McCain did to his first wife goes to the core of his "character," but he is too much of a partisan to admit that truth. What McCain did to his first wife, whose bones where cut down by four inches, a woman who had to leave her home because it was too hard to navigate, makes him a contemptible husband. Can you imagine how Obama would be treated by Ross if he had done this to his wife?

Posted by jay | June 9, 2008 2:42 PM

Stuff like this is so silly. It's asinine to exclude someone who may be the best choice (I'm not advocating McCain) just because of marital infidelities, which have little bearing on how the candidate executes the duties of a public office. Artificially narrowing the field like this is dumb.

Posted by lfv | June 9, 2008 2:44 PM

How do we know Obama never messed around on Michelle? As far as I'm concerned it isn't any of our business and no one should be inviting that kind of inquiry.

Posted by Tim K | June 9, 2008 2:46 PM

The fact, that John McCain is an adulterer, a war mongerer, ignorant of how economy works, and indifferent to plight of those affected by the deplorable health care system, does not mean that Douthat is going to argue that conservatives should deliver the White House to Obama in order to make a futile protest against the nomination of a Republican candidate who is more likely that not going to be a disaster for the country.

Posted by gregor | June 9, 2008 2:47 PM

I predicted on the initial thread:

Let us not forget, despite Ross Douthat's mild and sometimes pleasant nature, that he is first and foremost a partisan Republican. He will therefore support John McCain and suggest that we should not judge him, lest we be judged. This will not prevent him, however, from calling Obama's mainstream pro-choice position "deeply troubling."

And Douthat delivers!

I'm not going to argue that social conservatives should deliver the White House to Obama in order to make a futile protest against the decline of masculine honor among our politicians.

I understand how Matthew can be friends with Ross on a personal and professional level, but I fail to understand why his musings are treated with admiration among so many young center-left bloggers. The guy is a Republican first, "conservative thinker" distant second.

Posted by drjimcooper | June 9, 2008 2:48 PM

Honesty in the pursuit of liberalism is no virtue, hypocrisy in the pursuit of conservatism is no vice!

I think you've mixed up cogency with cynicism, Matt.

Posted by SqueakyRat | June 9, 2008 2:49 PM

cogently. really. what james said.

"sexual misconduct"? "masculine honor"?

um, can you give me the time? 1957? I thought so.

honesty, decency, integrity, honor. that's all. they need no qualifiers.

Posted by along | June 9, 2008 2:50 PM

Yeah, actually, that argument makes no sense.

Exactly who does Ross think is going to impose these "social costs of sexual misconduct"? The Great Sexual Misconduct Referee in the Sky? It turns out He doesn't impose any penalties until the afterlife (or so I have heard).

So if such a cost is ever going to get imposed on politicians in this life, it will have to be imposed by people like Ross. And if people like Ross refuse to impose such a cost on politicians because they don't like the electoral implications, then such costs will never be imposed. Therefore, Ross is part of the problem, and his complaining about the problem is hypocritical.

Posted by DTM | June 9, 2008 2:50 PM

And another thing: Philandering adulterers shouldn't cast stones at gay people.

Posted by K | June 9, 2008 2:51 PM

But note that it's a cogently argued brief for the view that cultural conservatives ought to deploy the marital indiscretions of liberal politicians as a political issue while ignoring the indiscretions of conservative politicians.

Huh? I think it's an argument for considering marital indiscretions as a factor in casting one's vote, but not making it determinative. In practice, of course, Ross will go with the Republican over the Democrat--which, I guess, means that he's more likely to talk about marital indiscretion in a candidate he opposes than in one he supports. Sorta like you.

Posted by David in Nashville | June 9, 2008 2:56 PM

As for McCain, he discovered in a North Vietnamese prison that every man has his breaking point, by breaking himself. (Read his book if you don't believe me.) But what gets broken doesn't automatically get fixed upon release, so his amoral behavior on returning to the US shouldn't really be a surprise.

Posted by SqueakyRat | June 9, 2008 2:57 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KBobsMD7DBM

Apparently McCain is the Fool on the HIll... Does this make Cindy Yoko?

Posted by Kafkaesque | June 9, 2008 2:58 PM

Tim K,

Pointing out the hypocrisy of people like Douhat when it comes to the matters such as "sexual misconduct" is not the same thing as endorsing their views on those matters.

Posted by DTM | June 9, 2008 3:01 PM

Shoot, I can do Douthat's complete argument in seven letters: IOKIYAR.

Posted by Doug | June 9, 2008 3:03 PM

Cogently argued?

....I'd like to see the social costs of sexual misconduct go up, at least on the margins, and having certain avenues to prominence closed off to you if you decide to ditch your family and take up with a younger, richer, healthier woman seems like a reasonable cost to impose on would-be divorcees.

Unless we're talking about laws bouncing adulterers off the ballot, the 'social costs' Ross is talking about will have to be imposed by the voters on the politician. Fair enough.

All of that said, though, we're obviously a long, long way from that state of affairs, and things being what they are, I'm not going to argue that social conservatives should deliver the White House to Obama in order to make a futile protest against the decline of masculine honor among our politicians.

Now, presented with a chance to impose this 'social cost', Ross gives himself an out arguing that since not enough people are imposing this cost, neither should he. Cogently argued indeed.

Posted by Nathan A | June 9, 2008 3:06 PM

McCain may be a cad. However, I find it plausible his wooing and subsequent marrying of Cindy was for a host of reasons having nothing to do with her wealth, social status or beauty. Commentators constantly claim those were his motivations, hardly mentioning it may have been because he fell in love with her for dozens of personal attributes wholly unrelated. It's not as if he can come out and candidly confess she can suck the chrome off a bumper.

Posted by steve duncan | June 9, 2008 3:08 PM

Lots of marriages don't survive five years apart. Look at the spike in divorces in 1946. And McCain didn't get to come home even on leave for half a decade.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 9, 2008 3:15 PM

Stuff like this is so silly. It's asinine to exclude someone who may be the best choice (I'm not advocating McCain) just because of marital infidelities, which have little bearing on how the candidate executes the duties of a public office. Artificially narrowing the field like this is dumb.

We all agree with you. But then we aren't the party of moralistic crusaders, of which Ross is a self-admitted member. Goose and gander and all that.

Posted by Pooh | June 9, 2008 3:15 PM

Douthat's thin-as-thin-can-be answer to MY just bolsters my belief that for all the fancy layers and facades of neo-Aristotelian and Natural Law rhetoric he dresses up in, he is just a do-anything, say-anything Reaganite by another name.

Posted by Ben Cronin | June 9, 2008 3:18 PM

Stuff like this is so silly. It's asinine to exclude someone who may be the best choice (I'm not advocating McCain) just because of marital infidelities, which have little bearing on how the candidate executes the duties of a public office. Artificially narrowing the field like this is dumb.

We all agree with you. But then we aren't the party of moralistic crusaders, of which Ross is a self-admitted member. Goose and gander and all that.

Posted by Pooh | June 9, 2008 3:19 PM

Douthat is an affirmative-action conservative. Great career choice for a guy with his talents. I suppose we should admire the ingenuity of his attempts to gild the turd that conservativism has become.

Posted by John J Emerson | June 9, 2008 3:20 PM

p.s: I'm getting tired of conservative gasbags droning on about family values, but finding no motivation to hold their own leaders accountable for failures in this arena. If acts of adultery weren't sufficient to cost Vitter, McCain or DeLay their support in conservative circles, can't we agree that 'family values' are irrelevant to government and public policy?

Posted by Nathan | June 9, 2008 3:21 PM

That's cogently argued.

Huh. My dictionary must have accidentally left out the part where one meaning of "cogent" is "hypocritical; weaselly; motivated solely by expedience." Maybe I should take it back to the store and get a new one.

Posted by live | June 9, 2008 3:24 PM

Am I the only one who does not think that cheating on your wife is comparable to abandoning her for a better model? Hell, there are open marriages and couples that have extra-spousal sexual activities for fun. The previous president had an affair, didn't lose his job, and then his wife almost won the Democratic nomination. Cheating is just not a big deal politically, nor should it be.

What McCain did is qualitatively different. He didn't betray his wife's trust, he removed her from his life for someone else, a woman who was rich, young and healthy. From a cost-benefit perspective you can see why he did it, but imo it's way worse than infidelity.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | June 9, 2008 3:25 PM

Am I the only one who does not think that cheating on your wife is comparable to abandoning her for a better model? Hell, there are open marriages and couples that have extra-spousal sexual activities for fun. The previous president had an affair, didn't lose his job, and then his wife almost won the Democratic nomination. Cheating is just not a big deal politically, nor should it be.

What McCain did is qualitatively different. He didn't betray his wife's trust, he removed her from his life for someone else, a woman who was rich, young and healthy. From a cost-benefit perspective you can see why he did it, but imo it's way worse than infidelity.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | June 9, 2008 3:32 PM

Mitch,

Well, personally I would say there is a difference between an open marriage and having secret affairs, because in the former you aren't deceiving your spouse. And I also think there can be situations in which one spouse gets the other spouse to "agree" to tolerate his or her infidelity even though the other spouse finds it very painful (basically by using the threat of leaving the marriage entirely, which the other spouse would find even more painful). Of course I have no idea what was going on between the McCains during the time he was having affairs and before he left Carol for Cindy, so I am just talking hypothetically.

But of course I see things in this way because I view these as issues involving treating individual people fairly and in ways conducive to their happiness. If instead I was all about punishing deviations from some particular sexual model, I may not care about things like who agree to what and why.

Posted by DTM | June 9, 2008 3:36 PM

Of course Ross approves. After all "traditional values" means treating women as second class citizens and McCain comes through with flying colors!

Posted by Rob | June 9, 2008 3:39 PM

Look, obviously none of us believe that someone should vote against the person who shares their ideology and policy beliefs because of personal flaws. The point is the conservatives who gave us 8 years of FlowersLewinskyGate were hypocrites, and they should own up to that. Ross was not one of them, and honestly McCain was less one of them than others. But I'd like to hear "conservative thinkers" like Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan, et al answer for this.

Fortunately, I think most of the voters agree that policy/party comes before personal flaws. Clinton never paid a price for this at the voting booth, and it wouldn't appear his wife did either.

Posted by Shock Mouse | June 9, 2008 3:59 PM

As the man above said, "IOKIYAR".

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 9, 2008 4:05 PM

"What McCain did is qualitatively different. He didn't betray his wife's trust, he removed her from his life for someone else, a woman who was rich, young and healthy. From a cost-benefit perspective you can see why he did it, but imo it's way worse than infidelity."

I think you'd have to classify McCain's actions as more grown-up, when contrasted with the adolescent essence of infidelity. Morally and ethically it may be dubious, but forthrightly trading in your spouse for a better model is a more "adult" thing to do than holding onto that spouse while repeatedly betraying them.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 9, 2008 4:14 PM

i have in some respects been fortunate in having two wives who became gravely ill in the course of our marriages. i say fortunate because it has taught me a lesson in humility and compassion not yet learned, apparently, by young bloggers. i did not follow sen. mccain's example but it is easy for me to imagine very slight changes to my situations which would have made his behavior quite appropriate. this is not behavior you should want to make judgments about.

Posted by dbreger | June 9, 2008 4:25 PM

Am I the only one who does not think that cheating on your wife is comparable to abandoning her for a better model? Hell, there are open marriages and couples that have extra-spousal sexual activities for fun. The previous president had an affair, didn't lose his job, and then his wife almost won the Democratic nomination. Cheating is just not a big deal politically, nor should it be.

What McCain did is qualitatively different. He didn't betray his wife's trust, he removed her from his life for someone else, a woman who was rich, young and healthy. From a cost-benefit perspective you can see why he did it, but imo it's way worse than infidelity.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | June 9, 2008 4:40 PM

honestly McCain was less one of them than others

How'd he vote on impeachment?

Posted by croatoan | June 9, 2008 4:42 PM

So what most of the commenters here are saying is, if you have a problem with one aspect of a candidatels character, you should vote for the other party?

Turn this around and assume you were an Obama supporter: How big of a philosophical disagreement would you have to find with him, to make you want to vote McCain just out of spite? Alternate scenario, for (former) Hillary supporters - Does the fact you were willing to vote her mean that you therefore are willing to sign off on everything she has ever done or said?

You all are holding Ross to a standard you would never hold yourselves to. Ross just wishes that personal responsibility and ethics were considered more important than they are. If the public did consider personal ethics to be more important, presumably politicians of both parties would be held to higher standards, and it would not necessarily change the policy landscape.

Given the current culture, the only choices are either to 1) Stay home 2) Vote Quixotic 3rd party, or 3) Hold your nose and vote for the candidate you have the fewest overall disagreements with, who also has a plausible chance of winning.

What's so horrible about #3?

Posted by An Onyx Mousse | June 9, 2008 4:44 PM

Mitch Schindler wins this thread's Mel Tillis Award.

Posted by steve duncan | June 9, 2008 4:45 PM

I don't really care if Abe Lincoln had carnal knowledge of casaba melons or reindeer. I guess that's why I'm not a cultural conservative or whatever people who preach about others personal conduct while lying about their own call themselves these days.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 9, 2008 4:48 PM

MBunge: I think you'd have to classify McCain's actions as more grown-up, when contrasted with the adolescent essence of infidelity. Morally and ethically it may be dubious, but forthrightly trading in your spouse for a better model is a more "adult" thing to do than holding onto that spouse while repeatedly betraying them.

I disagree, but even if I didn't he started sleeping around as soon as he got back from Vietnam and courted his current wife while he was still married. From the article:

"When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it." (earlier in the article) "McCain has acknowledged that he had girlfriends during this time, without going into details." McCain acknowledged that he had affairs.

"In 1979 – while still married to Carol – he met Cindy at a cocktail party in Hawaii. Over the next six months he pursued her, flying around the country to see her. Then he began to push to end his marriage."

"Carol and her children were devastated. "It was a complete surprise," says Nancy Reynolds, a former Reagan aide."

McCain behaved as if he wasn't married or had any obligation of monogamy to his wife for years and then when he finally find another woman to marry he dumped his wife (and kids also? she got custody, right?) and got remarried within a month. Quite the examplar of virtue.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | June 9, 2008 4:53 PM

I have, evidently to a lesser degree, shared dbreger's experience. Having sucked it up, I can understand McCain's motivations, while at the same time not forgive them.

In addition, what ever part of Cindy McCain's wealth, youth, health, and/or sexual prowess attracted John, he's still a cad. So is she, for taking up with a man not yet divorced.

FYI, Senator McCain voted to impeach, while acknowledging his own failures. He conveniently ignored the millions of dollars Richard Mellon Scaife spent to set the scene, exploiting Clinton's personal weaknesses.

Posted by cmholm | June 9, 2008 4:58 PM

Yes, but social conservatives still have to explain to me why I should live by their rules when even they don't live by their rules.

Posted by gex | June 9, 2008 5:08 PM

How'd he vote on impeachment?

Guilty on both counts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Senate_vote:_obstruction_of_justice_charge

Posted by Kyle | June 9, 2008 5:17 PM

Agree that Mr Schindler is insightful by reminding us that coldly trading in an old family for a trophy wife complete with trustfund puts one lower in the inferno than a one-nighter after the office party. But wish to point out that engaging Ross Douthout in a debate about layers of sin and degrees of guilt is like playing pick-up football against the GreenBayPackers. Let him have that worthless piece of intellectual landscape to himself.

Here's what really stands out in Ross' original post--that he advocates social consequences for (specifically) sexual immorality be somehow maintained (whether magically or politically is unspecificed). It isn't too much of a stretch to imagine that essentially he is 'wishing' for active prosecution of laws against adultery, for laws against contraceptives to be resumed and enforced, that 'blue laws' potecting Ross' version of the Sabbath and etc etc.

Mr Emerson cleverly calls this 'affirmative action conservatives'. Wonderful phrase!! Probably to be enforced by Attorney Gen'l Santorum and the new Federal Morality Police.

Yeah, Ross has lots of cache amongst the wordies of the Right. Tells you how desperate they are.

Posted by JohnMcC | June 9, 2008 5:44 PM

This thread is a sad read. I doubt a single person who commented above doesn't grasp the idea that it would be silly to oppose the candidate who most embodies one's own policy preferences as a means of punishing a stain on their private character. This kind of solipsistic (or bad faith) glee of "A-ha! The true unthinking, herd-like, dishonest nature of Douthat is revealed!" commentary when someone backing the other guy expresses the same rather obvious, common sense position is embarrassing.

Posted by Peter | June 9, 2008 5:48 PM

This thread is a sad read. I doubt a single person who commented above doesn't grasp the idea that it would be silly to oppose the candidate who most embodies one's own policy preferences as a means of punishing a stain on their private character. This kind of solipsistic (or bad faith) glee of "A-ha! The true unthinking, herd-like, dishonest nature of Douthat is revealed!" commentary when someone backing the other guy expresses the same rather obvious, common sense position is embarrassing.

Posted by Peter | June 9, 2008 5:49 PM

This thread is a sad read. I doubt a single person who commented above doesn't grasp the idea that it would be silly to oppose the candidate who most embodies one's own policy preferences as a means of punishing a stain on their private character. This kind of solipsistic (or bad faith) glee of "A-ha! The true unthinking, herd-like, dishonest nature of Douthat is revealed!" commentary when someone backing the other guy expresses the same rather obvious, common sense position is embarrassing.

Posted by Peter | June 9, 2008 6:03 PM

I don't think this will actually change any votes. Of course, yes, it does mean anyone pretending infidelity was not merely bad but a disqualification to office and now supporting McCain is a massive hypocrite, but positions evolve, and that's that.

I think the underexamined aspect of this story is that heroes do bad things too. It's true--there's nothing Obama has done in his life that's as epic as McCain's POW saga. OTOH, there's nothing Obama has done (that we know of) that's as bad as McCain's mistreatment of a woman who still loves him. People can commit selfless acts requiring great strength one moment and then do terribly hurtful selfish things out of boredom the next.

Posted by Consumatopia | June 9, 2008 6:06 PM

Peter is easily saddened and easily embarrassed. He's going to have a hard time making it through life, I fear.

The hidden topic sentence here is "What if McCain were a Democrat?" The Republican Party would certainly be shrieking about his evil nature, and Douthat would presumably be chipping in too in his inimitable semi-intelligent semi-civilized Way.

But Peter has to go meta on us. "If I were Douthat, I would do exactly the same, so I can't complain when he does it." So Douthat gets to be a political hack, and our response is to be high-minded, detached, objective, and passive. Not a winning strategy.

Posted by John Emerson | June 9, 2008 6:07 PM

I think a marital/relationship history like McCain's, while unfortunate and unusual, doesn't really lend itself to cut-and-dry conclusions (like Ross Douthat tries to make) when you're talking about it in the abstract, instead of in the case and context of a particular person.

I think in the total context of everything we know about McCain, McCain's marital history tends to recinforce the conclusion that he's a dick. And I don't think that this should count for any more or less, publicly or privately, than someone's being a dick usually does, irrespective of the fact that it had to do with marriage and sexual relationships.

But if it was a different person, a total different context, the same basic outline of behavior (the first marriage, the affairs, the courting the second wife, the divorce from the first wife, and the second wife's being an heiress), might not be such ridiculous behavior and might really be explicable. What if the first wife was insane? What if she became really-not-nice after marriage?

So to the extent Ross Douthat is trying to talk about this in the abstract- about how we should treat politicians who do what McCain does, not just how we should view McCain for what he did- I'm a little cautious of it.

Posted by Swan | June 9, 2008 6:10 PM

Let me see if I can put this in perspective. Douthat seems to be saying that sexual shenanigans on the part of prominent politicians are bad, but they are not so bad that we shouldn't elect republicans over democrats as a result. In other words, this is an issue, but not a very high priority one.

On the other hand, many prominent Republicans were screaming that, no matter what other things Clinton may have done, his sexual misconduct made him unfit for the presidency. This does not seem like they treated the issue as not very high priority. So, although Douthat does come up with an explanation, it still seems fairly hypocritical to me. They preached that this was an issue of critical importance, but now that the chicken has come home to roost they are deciding the issue isn['t all that important after all.

Posted by Archimedes | June 9, 2008 6:24 PM

Sorry about the triple post.

John, if you're capable of contemplating how Republicans might act if McCain were the Democratic candidate, perhaps you're also capable of contemplating how *you* would act if McCain were the Democratic candidate? You might or might not wish for a world in which people who mistreated their wives like that didn't get the Presidential nomination from a major party, but given the world as it is, would you really back the other candidate?

Go after McCain all you want: why shouldn't this side of his character be an issue when even less recent events consistently are? I'm only saying it's embarrassing to write or believe that Douthat must be a dishonest drone, rather than acting in a way consistent with the logic of the above paragraph.

Posted by Peter | June 9, 2008 6:27 PM

I think you'd have to classify McCain's actions as more grown-up, when contrasted with the adolescent essence of infidelity. Morally and ethically it may be dubious, but forthrightly trading in your spouse for a better model is a more "adult" thing to do than holding onto that spouse while repeatedly betraying them.

Um, McCain did both. He was still married to his first wife while cheating on her with Cindy (and several others) and THEN abandoned his first wife for his mistress.

Posted by Stefan | June 9, 2008 6:29 PM

perhaps you're also capable of contemplating how *you* would act if McCain were the Democratic candidate? You might or might not wish for a world in which people who mistreated their wives like that didn't get the Presidential nomination from a major party, but given the world as it is, would you really back the other candidate?

Peter, I think you are missing the point. The point is not whether people here would vote for the other guy -- the people in this thread who make you so sad are not saying this kind of thing matters that much to them. They are pointing out that people like Ross would not hesitate, and have not hesitated, to scream that this kind of behavior makes someone unfit when it's done by someone they oppose politically anyway. Then McCain comes along, and all of a sudden you get this thoughtful, nuanced, chin-stroking, sober look at the question, somehow magically getting the result that, surprise, this time it's OK to vote for our guy after all!

The point is the blatant hypocrisy of rightwing cultural conservatives, not what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot. Non-cultural conservatives are already agreed that this kind of thing doesn't have to rule someone out.

Posted by hello | June 9, 2008 6:39 PM

Perhaps some of the posters might want to look at the follow-up posts by Ross and see if they still want to attribute such naunce and objectivity they seem to see in the first post.

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 6:52 PM

Just to clarify where I stand on the overall subject of adultery and politicians...I have been saying for years that I couldn't care less if the president got a blowjob from a different 20-year-old every single day he was in office as long as his policies and actions as president are good. I don't these people personally and I'm only affected by their public actions as president, not their personal sexual habits.

My problem with McCain is that his personal narrative, which is the entire foundation of his political aspirations, is a sham. He claims to be a "different kind of politician." All other politicians are bought and paid for, but not campaign finance reform, no lobbyist influence John McCain! All other politicians take positions on policies for political expediency, but not John "Maverick" McCain! All other politicians are power-hungry and corrupt, but not the virtuous John McCain! It's pure bullshit. It's all marketing and public relations, and he is the product. But what he did to his first wife was real and atrocious.

Honestly, there is a great parody of the Ten Commandments waiting to be made where McCain is Moses. "Why is this politician different from all other politicians?" Pharaoh's court is Congress, Pharaoh is Bush, the Egyptians are CEOs and lobbyists, and the Israelites are the beset-upon American people, forced to toil to enrich the fatcats and sycophants.

P.S. Sorry about the multiple posts above. I almost never multipost. For some reason my refresh button was reposting my post even though it had already been posted and I wasn't on the posting screen. I just wanted to refresh.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | June 9, 2008 6:58 PM

But if it was a different person, a total different context, the same basic outline of behavior (the first marriage, the affairs, the courting the second wife, the divorce from the first wife, and the second wife's being an heiress), might not be such ridiculous behavior and might really be explicable. What if the first wife was insane? What if she became really-not-nice after marriage?

Yeah, Swan, you're right. What if she turned into a porcupine? What if she wanted to move to the South Pole? What if the whole thing was like, you know, Prince Charles and Princess Di, except somewhat different?

Posted by SqueakyRat | June 9, 2008 7:34 PM

So Lady Chatterley was a bad person?

Posted by novakant | June 9, 2008 8:53 PM

Contra some of the upthread comments, we aren't talking about adultery. We are talking about a divorce with no justifiable grounds. Throwing over your disabled wife because she isn't pretty or graceful anymore is much worse than adultery.

Posted by kth | June 9, 2008 9:41 PM

I have to admit my favorite is Ross standing by the argument that Vitter should resign, but also saying he would vote for Vitter if he was the 2008 Republican nominee for President.

I guess the "principle" is something like: Republicans in political office should be held accountable for "sexual misconduct", but of course only if they hold a safely Republican seat.

Posted by DTM | June 9, 2008 9:42 PM

The big problem for someone like Ross, wanting to make sexual mores much more public, is that Repubicans are less moral than Democrats. It's in the Republican stronghold states that we find most children born out of wedlock, most incest, most child abuse, most domestic violence. Among Republican leaders, we find far more marriages broken for petty reasons, more cruelty from husbands to wives in the process of separation, and much more behavior that moralists like Ross call deviant.

At some point, if they were serious about it, they'd ask themselves why they end up with all the brutal weirdos and just plain creeps on their side. There are, of course, badly behaving Democrats. But they stand out as exceptions. Reagan had children conceived out of wedlock with his second wife; Bush Sr. and Jr. have notoriously harsh and strange family relations; Cheney has a daughter whose existence his party's platform condemns and whose most respected religious leaders hold responsible in part for 9/11; McCain has his infidelities and abandonment. The Clintons have Bill's infidelities to deal with, but also a daughter to be proud of, particularly in the face of truly mind-boggling attacks from the Right all during her formative years; Edwards is supporting his wife rather than ditching her; the Obamas have an obviously happy family. And it's not Democratic politicians being found dead in double wet suits with dildos inserted, nor getting caught explaining about just what they were doing with that homosexual hooker and all those drugs. (Or, as may be, why exactly a gay gigolo was given press credentials and exempted from routine security measures.)

In short, if one is serious about sexual mores in the sense of actually desiring good behavior as opposed to earnest verbal adoration coupled with bad actual behavior, then the place to look for support is the Democrats, and the place to look for case studies in pathological moral failure is the Republicans.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | June 9, 2008 11:29 PM

Bruce Baugh:

The short explanation of the facts you note is that Republican ideology is about selfishness, and Democratic ideology isn't.

Posted by live | June 9, 2008 11:52 PM

Peter, “private morals are key signs of character, but if you're talking about a Republican we’ll agree to overlook them for the greater good,” really isn’t parallel to pointing and laughing at that stance.

No one here is claiming that McCain isn’t morally fit to be President because of the way he conducted his personal life around the time of his divorce. Rather, we’re mocking the Republican obsession with divining the “character” of politicians, and how enormously flexible it seems to be when they want to elect someone.

Of course Mr. Douthat’s stance is simply sensible. It isn’t is even slightly compatible with anything that social conservatism supposedly stands for. If the private character of politicians is secondary to electing politicians that you agree with, then social conservatism is just political pragmatism with a fish on the trunk.

Posted by Llelldorin | June 10, 2008 12:19 AM

I don't really care if Abe Lincoln had carnal knowledge of casaba melons or reindeer. I guess that's why I'm not a cultural conservative or whatever people who preach about others personal conduct while lying about their own call themselves these days.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 9, 2008 4:48 PM

Fair enough (casaba melons are morally neutral, and reindeer are... well, that depends). Wouldn't you care, though, if it turned out that Abe Lincoln turned out to beat or rape Mary Lincoln? Even if you think that he was still a great president, surely it would be a disturbing fact about his character, if it were true -- not to mention a horrible fact Mary's life. (Although by all accounts we have, he was a good husband to the extent that a national-level politician and president facing the greatest crisis in the nation's history can be, even if he was a closet case. (I don't know enough to say whether he was or not for sure.))

Abandoning one's spouse to marry someone else isn't the same is abuse or rape, but it's not the same as masturbating with a casaba melon either.

Posted by Julian Elson | June 10, 2008 1:13 AM

"Abandoning one's spouse to marry someone else isn't the same...as masturbating with a casaba melon either."

Depends on your spouse. Laura Bush, anyone? Pat Nixon? Hillary Clinton?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 10, 2008 4:09 AM

The language of the marriage service is very specific. If you cannot abide by the covenant, don't agree to it. If what you say means anything, then what you agree to before god and man means everything.

Posted by Jay Dwight | June 10, 2008 6:58 AM

C'mon people, can you say red herring? This isn't hard to understand. The sexual morality stuff, like the haircuts, windsurfing, squirrely pastors and siblings/children gone wild "issues" we've edured since time immemorial aren't game changers to anyone who takes politics seriously, and it's a suckers game to respond to them as such. They're simply a way to change the subject in order to either deflect attention from the fact you're losing on relevant issues or sway some poor "low information voter (i.e., sap) foolish enough to consider this stuff important. And there are a lot fewer of those than the so-called "high information" types think.

If Clinton had been smart enough to say "yep, sure was a wrong thing to do" when Monica first came up, the people who hated him would have continued to hate him, the people who supported him would have continued to support him, and everyone involved could have saved a lot of wasted time and energy. Just refuse to engage in this kind of garbage. It doesn't change anybody's mind (for or against) and it sucks up energy that could be better spent doing something that would help.

Posted by stuck in 200 | June 10, 2008 10:18 AM

Just a tip for everybody who has multiple-posted.

I ran into the same problem where I was sure that I hadn't posted, or uncertain as to whether I had posted, because of the funny way the system was acting.

I solved the problem this way: if you think you have posted, or are uncertain, open up the same thread in a new tab or window and check at the bottom. Your post will almost always be there, obviating the need to repost.

Posted by seeker6079 | June 10, 2008 10:32 AM

"Stuck in 2000", the problem with your argument is a simple tactical one, already noted by others: that not using it when your opponent does is to stick to Queensbury rules when your opponent is coming at you with a broken bottle.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the people here with no patience for the GOP's view, which can be summarized as "it's important, vital and more important than substance and policy when we catch a Dem with his pants downl; when it's a Republican it is irrelevant!". What makes it worse and which I haven't seen noted here is that there is no perceivable constituency within the GOP which:
a) takes them to task on focusing on irrelevancies; (Quite the contrary, in fact, because the evangelical base within the party DEMANDS that sexual irrelevancies are more important than, say, welfare policies.)
b) insists that the GOP play nice even though the Dems don't.

Both of these breeds are over-represented within the Democratic Party and on the left. Duncan Macpherson put into a beautiful visual image.

Add to all of this the fact that, however much we want it to, this is not going to change, not least of which because the metaculture has become a voyeuristic one which believes that it has a right to all personal information on anybody who it is interested in.

Posted by seeker6079 | June 10, 2008 10:42 AM

Sounds pretty 1950's to me. I think I'll judge McCain on other criteria than his personal life.

Here's an interesting take which I found at Eric Alterman's site. It's an article about the military and argues that about the only thing that can ruin your career in the military is sex.

http://www.afji.com/2008/06/3468975

Posted by John Petty | June 10, 2008 11:03 AM

This guy is an ass.

However, infidelity isn't a reason not to vote for someone. People make mistakes. However, repeated incidents of infidelity paired with abandonment and neglect resulting in severe emotional trauma should be considered a mark against one's honesty, integrity, character, or whatever other bullshit word people are putting on their posters this month. When someone says you can trust him, and has a history of being untrustworthy, you should question his claims.

It's not a reason to not vote for someone. But, it is a reason to reconsider.

Posted by brenna | June 10, 2008 6:14 PM