Wow. To think I had the foresight to post about how irked I am at politics these days, just as a (so far baseless) report on John Kerry and philadering hit the newswaves. Joy. Rumors abound.<\/p>\n
First off, if this is a political hatchet job, from Chris Lahane or Karl Rove or whomever, I propose we take a real <\/i>hatchet to the guilty party. Enough’s enough.<\/p>\n
Secondly, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, it’s true. Should we care?<\/p>\n
This blog is too young for the last few sex scandels of this type, be it Clinton or Hart. But let me ponder aloud.<\/p>\n
On the one hand, it’s a personal matter. So long as it wasn’t done in a jurisdiction where adultery is a criminal offense (and, liberty-wise, even then), it’s none of the public’s business. It’s between Mr Kerry, Ms Heinz, the Woman in Question, and (assuming normal marriage vows) God.<\/p>\n
(Prepare, though, to hear endless jokes about how Kerry voted, “bravely,” against the Defense of Marriage Act …)<\/p>\n
I disapprove of adultery on principle. But I think it’s a personal matter to be worked out between the folks involved, and\/or their attorneys. I’m not convinced that, per se, it affects Kerry’s ability to be a good president.<\/p>\n
And, heck, we don’t know what sort of arrangement has with his wife<\/a>. Her jokes of “maiming” him aside, they may be quite satisfied with an “open” marriage. Is that our busienss?<\/p>\n On the other hand — I take my vows (matrimonial being the most obvious) very seriously. Tales of extramarital shenanigans and casual divorces (includnig among some of the highest political defenders of “family values”) chap my hide. If Kerry feels so differently about such a fundamental matter, are there other matters in which he might not represent me as I wish?<\/p>\n And, again, though we all joke about presidents and politicians and the like, we do imbue our presidency with a sense of moral leadership as well as political. That’s why it bugs us when we feel the president is lying, is doing bad things, etc. He represents the people, and should represent their moral will. Morally, one way or the other, I don’t think most American approve of adultery, at least in principle.<\/p>\n Further, the president tends to express things in moral terms. We fight for what’s right, we seek the truth and justice, we see ourselves as good. Does a moral lapse impact that aspect of the presidency (question marks about the moral standing of the current incumbent, or even his predecessor, aside)?<\/p>\n And here’s one: if the nation (or at least the politicos and regulators, if not the network types) is in a low boil over Janet Jackson flashing a breast on national TV, during a family event, doesn’t that seem trivial compared to sexual shenanigans by a presidential candidate? Less skin visible, but much more significant sexual implications. “Think about the kids,” I muse, only half in jest.<\/p>\n I think the impact of this — should it pan out as a true story — will be, as we’ve seen in any number of other scandals, how Kerry himself handles it. (How he handles it if it’s a false story will also be illustrative, though of different things.) Since Watergate (and isn’t it amazing how many echoes of the early 70s we keep running across this year?) the lesson politicians have learned the hard way (over and over again) is that it isn’t the crime that nails you, it’s the cover-up. It’s the wriggling, the bitter denials, the weasel-words, the lying about it, that gets you in real trouble.<\/p>\n So, if Kerry has indeed been fooling around on the side, the best thing he can do is (a) come clean on it, (b) express contrition, but not bathetic contrition, and (c) beg off further questions as it’s a personal matter between him and his wife, thankyouverymuch. He’ll be dogged by it, for the rest of his career, but if he can get the campaign back on issues, I think he’d be okay. Other politicians have gotten off the hook for worse.<\/p>\n But if he tries to stonewall, angrily denounces it all as a witch hunt and smear campaign, and further corroborating facts continue to leak out (as they will, once the media sense blood in the water), he’s dead. He’ll lose credibility, and tarnish his reputation (and so threaten to further tarnish the rep of the White House); it’s one thing to be in that position once already elected (see Clinton), quite another to be in it beforehand (see Hart).<\/p>\n Again, none <\/i>of this is confirmed, beyond rumor and innuendo, and my intent here is not to debate whether it is true — only to lay out my thinking on what it means if <\/i>it’s true, and whether (as I’m sure the debate would then open up into once more) whether it makes a difference to me or not.<\/p>\n UPDATE<\/u>: Kerry’s denying it<\/a>. Drudge <\/a>still sounds like the National Inquirer<\/i>. Parenthetically, for all that the Lewinsky scandel made Drudge, if he turns out to have blow this one, he’s <\/i>the one who’s dead.<\/p>\n