Over the past week, we’ve been privileged to witness the conservative reaction to governor Mark Sanford’s infidelity, from the disappointed to the insane. Now, from “New Majority,” finally, we get the sensible acknowledgement that treating “family values” as a simple buzzword might be oversimplifying the issue. True “values” gather meaning from a diversity of experience, not from the words of conservative hopefuls:
I no longer believe that there is any single formula for successful marriage. Contra Tolstoy, I would go so far to assert that unhappy families are all alike; every happy family is happy in its own way. [. . .]
But maybe the one quality that fans the initial spark into a steady pilot light is this: An overwhelming determination never to hurt the other person. In otherwords, whatever pleasure a certain action might grant you, you could not possibly bear the pain it would cause your wife or husband. You would rather scald your own hand than see the other’s scalded. You would throw him or her the last life preserver rather than keep it for yourself. It’s that basic. And it’s, of course, mutual.
With this realization should come the acknowledgment that different paths towards that same happiness should be lauded, not frowned upon. If it wasn’t clear before, it should be painfully obvious today that the far, far-right does not have, nor has it ever had, a monopoly on “family values.”
On that note: a happy if belated Pride Weekend to everyone, and especially the many, many gay couples who, by their acts, define and “defend” marriage and marital love daily.
I’m curious…if, let’s say, Nancy Pelosi was busted having an affair with some guy on her Secret Service detail, what would the appropriate liberal reaction be?
Posted by Mike | June 29, 2009, 10:41 amCheck: Let me rephrase that: What if Nancy Pelosi was having an affair with her neighbor (the Secret Service example muddies my question).
Posted by Mike | June 29, 2009, 10:42 am“Boo, give up your speakership,” just like Sanford.
Posted by ACG | June 29, 2009, 10:52 amSo an affair disqualifies would disqualify her from the Speakership? How so?
Posted by Mike | June 29, 2009, 11:27 amI think it’s reasonable to expect that, when one does something dishonorable, they forfeit positions premised on that honor. So, Sanford loses the RGA leadership but not the governorship; Pelosi would stand to lose the speakership but not her seat; but Clinton shouldn’t have been impeached.
Posted by ACG | June 29, 2009, 12:01 pmAhhh…Clinton gets a pass. Shocking, just shocking.
I guess my primary question though was aimed at, “What do liberals say about Pelosi?” Is she a bad person, is she a hypocrite, is she simply human? What is the rhetoric that would follow that revelation?
Posted by Mike | June 29, 2009, 12:17 pmIt’s not that Clinton gets a pass , it’s just that he’s not covered by the rule. I don’t think garden variety adultery should lead to forfeited elected office, and ice always been consistent on that, which is more than I can say for Ensign and Sanford, who, if they followed their 1998 consciences, would both have resigned.
As to Pelosi, I don’t get the point. Sanford proves that people who talk about “defending marriage” can’t do so themselves. Pelosi provides Bo new information.
Posted by ACG | June 29, 2009, 12:30 pmDamn iPhone.
Posted by ACG | June 29, 2009, 12:30 pmAs repellent as I find adultery, it’s heavily compounded if hypocrisy is an element. If you present yourself as defender of marriage and family values and are on record denouncing colleagues for marital infidelity, be prepared for your comeuppance if you commit similar transgressions.
Posted by James F | June 29, 2009, 12:59 pmSo to address both Ames’ and James point, liberals cover their asses by not making a big deal about fidelity, family values, etc.
And Ames, if you’re still trusting them in elected office, why not trust them in whatever other positions they hold? Nancy would still be qualified to represent thousands as a Congresswoman but no longer qualified to lead the House? I find that logic hard to swallow.
Posted by Mike | June 29, 2009, 1:03 pmI have to make distinction, Mike. I’m not an “x mollifies adultery” guy, I’m an “x exacerbates adultery” guy. Elliot Spitzer’s record of busting prostitution rings only to be caught with a prostitute himself is a good example of the latter category.
Posted by James F | June 29, 2009, 2:00 pmI mean, the reaction will be different based on their constituents themselves…
If a conservative is voting on social issues, and votes on a happily married man who he believes will fight for those issues, he may feel betrayed and that his politician can no longer champion the cause he was voted into office for.
If a liberal voter is concerned with, health-care reform or something, then the voter wouldn’t care so much if the person cheats because that wouldn’t affect the reason they voted that politician into office. I would imagine they would feel less outraged.
At the same time, that doesn’t mean that family values are only a concern of the conservative voter or that it’s never a concern for the liberal voter either.
Mostly for your constituency and the public eye…you kinda have to be clean on the issues you are running for/against. Or expect an especially strong reaction.
Posted by Oneiroi | June 29, 2009, 1:52 pmJames / Oneiroi,
Yes – I will agree that someone who talks in specifics (the Spitzer example is a good one) should get a second level of condemnation if they are found to be violating that same principle. But what did Sanford promote? Well the assumption (and i doubt either of you or most other people are checking) is that as a conservative he had promoted ‘family values’ at some point. Fair enough. But ‘family values’ is a big area. It includes all kinds of things, fidelity being just one example. But is that enough to make him some sort of extra-bad person?
I’m sure both of you believe in the general principle of the rule of law. So if either of you speed on your way home today, or maybe neglect to put on your seatbelt, does that make your action more worse than someone who doesn’t believe in our laws and does the same thing?
I guess that’s my point. Because Republicans are more vocal about promoting the large concept of family values, under which a lot can be lumped, they get an extra level of scrutiny everytime they deviate. I think it’s a bit unfair. If a Democrat was caught making all kinds of horrible gay jokes, would their actions be worse than a Republican because Democrats are the gay-friendly party?
Posted by Mike | June 29, 2009, 2:31 pmThis is part of the bag you get when you run as a christian conservative/Republican in middle America. It’s partly what his constituents expect.
I know when I vote I don’t care about a persons’ religiosity, if they’re divorced or single or married, but I imagine this is different for a large segment of the people that vote for republican politicians.
This is partly what conservatives run on, and Sanford himself has condemned infidelity in the past.
I think Edwards ran as a similar politician on the left, promoting his relationship and family to get elected, and it doomed him when he had an affair.
In the end, Newt, McCain, Guilliani are all mostly forgiven, it will be fine.
Posted by Oneiroi | June 29, 2009, 3:31 pm