With this third and final post, we wrap up our day of divorce. Find our other D-day contributors here and here.
History shows that we Americans generally like to elect politicians who have a stable family life, or at the least the appearance of one: a spouse, perhaps a couple of children, etc. Among candidates running for national and statewide office, the spouse is a pretty standard prop at campaign stops.
But is that model due for a change?
Among the most severe assaults on a politician’s image is the sex scandal or, in this country, even a generic affair. In recent days, we have seen:
1. One N.Y. governor lose his job for visiting a prostitute.
2. The incoming governor admit to past affairs (and his wife admit to her own).
3. That the former Newark mayor gave sweetheart land deals to his own extramarital sweetheart.
4. That a former New Jersey governor’s gay affair may have in fact been a menage-a-trois that included his own wife …
5. Etc., etc., etc.
This is to say nothing of the Times‘s infamous story about John McCain or the fact that Hillary Clinton’s political career can never be divorced from her husband’s dalliances. And let’s not even try to sort out the Rudy Giuliani story.
Could it be that marriage is in fact becoming a political handicap? With marriage — especially a public marriage, especially in this country — comes the responsibility to neither stray, cheat, nor deceive. With modern media and mores colliding with primitive desire, is the bar simply set too high?
Michael Bloomberg, the New York mayor who has occasional presidential inklings, was elected twice even though he is divorced. (He does have a serious longtime companion.) I am wondering if perhaps we are ready to start electing divorced men and women by the bushelful, perhaps even bachelors and bachelorettes. Does the political benefit of a solid marriage still outweigh the risk of that marriage blowing apart in public?
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I don’t necessarily think that marriage has become a handicap or that the bar is set too high. Each of the instances listed above have to do with infidelity which is an interesting thought in terms of are these politicians staying married for fear of not getting elected because they are divorced? I seriously doubt it, they would be having those affairs either way it didn’t matter in my opinion. I think that we are in a time right now as a people that divorce is becoming steadily more and more accepted. It used to be a topic people barely even spoke of and now it is something that is becoming commonplace. I think it is a great testament to the fact that the stigma of divorce is being lifted. The ideologies of the past are not longer acceptable to us a people today. It’s almost as if people don’t believe that “picture perfect family” image anymore, we now search for the crack or imperfection because we know it’s there. I work for http://www.firstwivesworld.com, it is an online community of support and help for women navigating through the various stages of divorce and life thereafter. I see everyday how this stigma is being lifted.
Just my two cents
Ann Marie
Most men who enter politics do so with the idea that power makes them more appealing to the opposite sex. Which is an argument for electing Hillary Clinton as President.
But isn’t there something a little scary about a person who enters politics without the idea that power will make them more appealing to the opposite sex? I mean, what else could they possibly be looking for?
As long as politicians are going to have a say in whether or not gay people can establish intimate longterm relationships with others, and have those relationships legally recognized, then it’s fair to have their own intimate relationships under the microscope. When the reasons for withholding legal recognition revolve around concerns of fidelity, monogamy, two parent households, and tradition, can we reasonably or fairly exempt politicians from the same standards?
Strong relationships are important, but I think we need to get past all the private stuff and start electing candidates based on their qualifications, policies, and ideas. Family life, relationships, and “marriage,” are not really essential to good public service. One’s relationships may give a glimpse into one’s character ( and I say a big “may”), but ultimately a good public servant is a good public servant because of the quality of their service, not whther or not they’re married, if they’re married, or whom they’re married to. In the case of highly qualified gay cndidates, marriage would seem to pretty much be a non-issue, but I wouldn’t want to see qualified gay persons excluded from public service.
Why people think a candidate’s personal life is ever anyone’s business is beyond me. Voters should focus on the candidate’s ability to perform the job.
@ Chuck #7: A marriage is a public commitment to another individual. A candidate’s ability to demonstrate integrity and good decision making with their past commitments is the primary way for voters to determine how well their character will stand up to the major commitment of public office.
“The vast majority of problems in our country can be prevented through strong families”?
That’s a curious assertion. Could the mortgage crisis have been prevented by strong families? The war in Iraq? The growing gap between rich and poor? Global warming?
Strong families don’t happen like magic, either. They need health care, affordable housing, quality education at a decent cost. Economic strains break families apart.
It’s pure fantasy to believe that making everyone part of a white Christian suburban middle class family with 2.2 kids and a car will solve most of our society’s problems.
It’s dishonesty and hypocrisy that are the worst for an elected official.
So with apologies to St. Paul, I’d say that sticking to a monogamous marriage is best, but if that’s not possible, “it’s better to divorce than to burn” in the everlasting fires of voter outrage.
The idea that “strong family” means “a white Christian suburban middle class family with 2.2 kids and a car” is also a curious assertion.