Sex, Lies & Politicos

All this talk about Anthony Weiner (a democratic state representative from New York) has made me really start to consider the following question: “Can a bad person be a good politician?”

Now, before you insert your dirty politician joke here, I’m being serious.  I think it’s obvious a bad person can be good at many jobs…mean plumbers, rude fashion designers, ungracious stockbrokers.  But can a bad person…an adulterer, a liar, a cheat…be a good politician?

Let’s talk this out.

(Disclaimer: I’m going to use the pronoun “he” for this post.  Please excuse my misandry for the sake of grammar).

First off: sex has nothing to do with most aspects of politicking.  If a state rep or a senator has kinkaliscious, leather bound, spiked collar coitus every day and then goes out to debate the aspects of a series of budget cuts, who cares?  As long as he gets the job done.  That’s why sexual orientation has no bearing on political prowess.  Sex is one thing.  Lying is another.

I am a child of the Clinton/Lewinsky* scandal.  Imagine little Lark, age 12, desperately trying to explain to her much more sexually experienced classmates that the president was being impeached for perjury, not for adultery.  I was unsuccessful and had to endure constant: “You prude!  Gonna impeach a guy for gettin’ some?!”

If a politician is willing to not only lie, but to break the law in order to keep his behavior secret, isn’t that a hallmark of someone you don’t want running the country?

In addition, we live in a time when most of us can choose our marriage partner.  Hypothetically, a politician who is married loves his wife.  If he can lie to his wife and children, whom he cares deeply about, what is to stop him from lying to his constituents who are no more than faces in a crowd?

Then you’ve got people like Eliot Spitzer, who built his career on prosecuting corruption and white collar crime.  But as a client of a high-end prostitute, he was in fact contributing to fraud the whole time (since prostitution isn’t always easy to prove, the upper-crust girls most often get fingered for tax evasion and breaking other financial laws).  So not only was he a cheater; Spitzer was a hypocrite.

Following the money, corruption can also be linked to a political sex scandal.  Spitzer was under investigation for using campaign funds to pay for liaisons with ladies of the night at the Mayflower Hotel.  I’m sure some enterprising reporter in poring over Arnold Schwarzenegger’s financials to see if he used California state funds to offset the cost of his mistress’ breast implants.

In the military, a soldier can be prosecuted for adultery in a military court.  It’s considered “unbecoming,” and a “detriment to the armed forces,” according to Article 134.  Basically if a soldier is willing to ignore the sanctity of his/her wedding vows, he could theoretically be willing to ignore orders from a higher-up.  Ignoring orders would destroy our military.

But then you have droves of successful, beloved politicians who were unfaithful.  I’ve yet to see a dutiful Catholic household in the United States or Ireland without a framed photo of John F. Kennedy placed prominently on display.  FDR had extra-marital affairs before and after his presidency; probably during as well.  And Bill Clinton, for that matter, is considered one of the most productive presidents in recent history.

Personally, I have a serious problem with adultery and cannot abide any person, private or public, cheating on their spouse.  Most of the population isn’t forced into an arranged marriage.  It seems simple enough to me to get a divorce (or never get married in the first place) and spare your spouse and your conscience months or years of infidelity. 

So what does this mean?  I think it means some men can be trusted to separate business and pleasure and some men cannot.  The most important facet of this multi-dimensional issue is how the politician acts after he’s been caught.  Does he immediately fess up and apologize?  Plus one point.  Does he reveal details to staunch the inevitable flow of sordid stories from the other women?  Plus two points.  Does he give his wife the option of not standing mutely by his side as he confesses his sins on a public forum?  Plus three points.  Does he shut up about it after a few weeks and focus on the reasons he’s an elected official?  That’s a win; as much as you can have a win in this sordid situation.

What about the other guy?  The one who denies an affair over and over…or blames a resulting pregnancy on one of his staffers?  How about the man who repeatedly insults magazines and newspapers printing nothing but the truth?  Or the guy who claims he only pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct while trying to solicit sex in an airport bathroom to “make the issue go away” but he’s really innocent?  The guy who refuses multiple calls from his own party to resign and then takes personal time to deal with his “issues”?  Minus a million points.  This guy sucks.

So like many gray-area issues, I think this one can only be judged on a case-by-case basis.  After all, seeing how a man deals with adversity is a much better gauge of his character than seeing how he thrives in prosperity.  Especially when the adversity is a bed of his own making.  With a pro laying in it.

*To tell you the truth, Clinton messed me up.  I believed him when he said he was innocent of wrongdoing…I thought this was just another case of a woman looking for her 15 minutes front and center.  Then he went and changed the definition of “sex” for me and my peers and everyone to come after us.  When Baby Boomer girls were in 5^th grade, were they being ignored by boys because they refused to put anyone’s penis in their mouths?  I was.  “It’s not sex,” they told me.  “The President even said so.  It’s just like kissing, only better.”