 "Photo: courtesy of www.bioguide.congress.gov")
From the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the royal kings of Great Britain, politics have always been bubbling with scheming, scandals and secrets. America is no exception to the rule.
John Edwards, North Carolina’s former golden boy, seems to be a name on everybody’s lips lately. Unfortunately for Edwards, his recent monopoly over American conversation is not in regards to his political achievements. Disdain is being cast quicker than election votes in Edwards’ direction, as details of his extramarital affair explode in the media. Edwards admitted on Jan. 21 that two-year-old Frances Quinn Hunter is indeed his child with former mistress Rielle Hunter. This guilty plea resulted in a legal separation from his wife, Elizabeth, as well as an investigation into whether campaign laws were overstepped by Edwards’ fancy footwork in dancing around his affair.
It is an unquestionable detail that this scandalous drama has elicited many heated discussions across the dinner tables and talk shows of America, but should it matter? Naturally, if campaign boundaries were crossed, there are necessary consequences to be had and rightly so. However, if Edwards’ actions were exclusively tied to his personal life, should “we the people” be the judge of his deeds? In deciding to run for president, did Edwards forfeit his inalienable right to a private life? Judging by the reactions of the public, his sex scandal and secrecy were indeed a factor in his professional life.
What appears to be the problem is that his actions represent a flaw in character, a flaw so despicable that appointing him to any office of substantial weight would put the moral fiber of the country at risk. As his love life is laid out for the world to criticize, it seems we demand that our politicians meet some kind of honorable standard. If they fail to uphold what we deem appropriate and decent behavior, even in the most private aspects of their personal lives, they are eternally barred from the ballot. Extramarital affairs suggest an untrustworthy character: one devoid of faithfulness. In politics, it shouldn’t matter whether or not someone’s personal life is a pretty little package, but it should be important that they are honest and trustworthy. Faithlessness to one’s wife is personal. Faithlessness to one’s country is dangerous and unacceptable.
So, at the heart of the issue is whether or not Edwards’ affair makes him a disloyal person overall, incapable of honest politics. America may know the black and white of the affair; we know it happened, who was involved and that great effort was put towards its maintained secrecy. However, there are many angles to such an event and America can never truly know Edwards’ reasons or the intricate details of his love life. While the bare bones of his indiscretions suggest a flaw in his moral character, we cannot possibly assume to understand the whole story. Without a complete understanding, we are risking presuming too much and judging too quickly. In spite of these perplexing problems, one fact remains concrete, while personal lives may be convoluted and thorny, politics should not be.
Would Edwards’ affair cause him to flounder in a crisis or be entirely ineffective in the face of some national calamity? The answer that pops quickly to mind is “probably not.” However, if Edwards is inclined to deceitful behavior and improper exploits, allowing him to hold a position of power would seem ominously inappropriate. As more and more details of Edwards’ indiscretions flash crimson on our political radar, we must continue to combat the complex issues of morality and honesty, while respecting the fact that our politicians are people with personal lives and personal flaws.
Be the first to comment on this article!