Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Thoughts on Herman Cain and Adultery

This previous Saturday, presidential candidate Herman Cain withdrew from the GOP primary race, most probably because of his alleged extramarital affair.  It doesn't matter what I think of Cain coming up with the 9-9-9 plan or his catering to social conservatives to get primary votes.  It was hardly fair for Ginger White to cry "affair" without any substantiation.  At least with Newt Gingrich, you can confirm it.  Anyone can accuse someone of adultery as a dirty political tactic to knock down a candidate.  What's worse is that it works, especially on Republican candidates who campaign on family values.

Regardless of political party or veracity of the allegation, it makes us wonder whether adultery is so terrible that it should disqualify an individual to run for office.  On the one hand, adultery entails deception, self-indulgence, and an inability to keep one's commitments.  If an individual cannot keep an ethically sound household, how do we expect him to do so elsewhere?

[Just to clarify, if the marriage were in the context of an open marriage (i.e., polyamorous marriage), we wouldn't be having this conversation.  This is specifically for those who promise to monogamously be with each other "for richer or poor, in sickness and in health, and until death do us part."]

On the other hand, home and work are two different spheres.  It can be possible to be a lousy husband or father while being successful in the workplace.  Bill Clinton was a fine example of that.  His personal life was something to be abhorred.  On the other hand, Clinton had a presidency with a minimal amount of warfare (if you count Kosovo), not to mention economic growth, which included the Internet Boom, a budget surplus, and cutting back on spending in welfare programs.

I'm more inclined to believe in the latter.  I understand that individuals are flawed.  It's part of being human.  I doubt that that I would want to be friends with someone who is deceptive enough to lie to their spouse.  However, that is on a personal level.  The question that voters should be asking is whether a candidate accused of adultery would still be the best candidate for office, even in spite of their flaws.

2 comments:

  1. First, let me just say that I'm a big fan. I stumbled across this blog accidentally and have really enjoyed it since that day.

    In regards to this particular post, I just wanted to point out at least one thing that I believe to be a general mis-characterization of Clinton; the surplus issue. I recently found this article and it seems to blow a whole in the Clinton-Surplus story from the most comprehensive viewpoint possible. But hey, if you know why this article is definitely bogus, I'd love to hear that too. Kol Tov.

    http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/craigsteiner/2011/08/22/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous,

      I'm glad that you enjoy the blog! I took a look at the article, as well as the data, and by the look of it, Steiner's claims are legit: the Clinton surplus was indeed a myth. It's good to be able to debunk something that so many people readily accept as fact. Thank you for bringing the article to my attention!

      Delete