creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager
22 May 2012
Rational People Fear Big Government, Not Big Business

You cannot understand the left if you do not understand that Leftism is a religion. It is not God-based (some Left-… Read More.

15 May 2012
Romney Understands America

On Saturday, Mitt Romney delivered a speech to the 6,000 Liberty College graduates. It was an important speech,… Read More.

8 May 2012
Conservatives and Gays

In addition to labeling conservatives and Republicans "anti-woman" (for opposing government-… Read More.

What Does Adultery Tell Us About Character?

Share Comment

With Herman Cain's announcement that he was suspending his presidential campaign because of the charges of sexual harassment and of a 13-year affair, issues are raised that the country would do well to think through. The two most obvious are whether we should care about a politician's sexual life and how much the press should report about these matters.

But there is a larger issue that needs to be addressed first: What does adultery tell us about a person? For many Americans, the answer is: "Pretty much all we need to know." This certainly seems to be the case with regard to presidential candidates. The view is expressed this way: "If he can't keep his vows to his wife, how can we trust him to keep his vows to his country?"

I am a religious conservative, but I know this statement has no basis in fact. It sounds persuasive, but it is a non sequitur. We have no reason to believe that men who have committed adultery are less likely to be great leaders or that men who have always been faithful are more likely to be great leaders. To religious readers, I point to God Himself, who apparently thought that King David deserved to remain king — and even have the Messiah descend from him — despite a particularly ugly form of adultery (sending Bathsheba's husband into battle where he would assuredly be killed).

And while on the subject of leadership, another question for religious and/or conservative readers who believe that a man who sexually betrays his wife will likely betray his country: Who would you prefer for president? A pro-life conservative who had had an affair, or a pro-choice man of the left who had always been faithful to his wife?

Jimmy Carter, to the best of our knowledge, has been faithful to his wife throughout their long marriage. That is certainly commendable. Did it make him in any way a better president? Has it given moral acuity to the man who wrote a book equating democratic Israel with apartheid South Africa?

And the American who, perhaps singlehandedly, may have prevented inter-racial war in America, Martin Luther King Jr., committed adultery on a number of occasions.

Would John F. Kennedy, a serial adulterer while in the White House, have been any different a president were he faithful?

Just knowing that a man or a woman had extramarital sex may tell us nothing about the person. I have always wanted to know: Why is sexual sin in general and adultery in particular the one sin that many religious people regard as defining a person as well as almost unforgiveable?

Nothing here is in any way meant to be a defense of adultery.

As a religious Jew, I believe it violates one of the Ten Commandments. As a married person, I know how much it would hurt my wife and how much it would hurt me if the other had an affair. But marriage is too complex an arena to draw any immediate conclusions about a person. Are we to label a man who takes loving care of his chronically ill wife and who has a discreet affair no more than an adulterer who merits disdain and mistrust? Is a woman who stays in an emotionally abusive marriage for the sake of her children someone with little integrity because she sought to be held in another man's loving arms? The questions and nuances are innumerable.

And what is adultery? Women have called my show to tell me that a man who gets a lap dance has committed adultery. Others go further — merely attending a strip show, or looking at Playboy, is adultery. To my mind, this is emotion — not reason, morality or religion — talking. Yes, many Christians cite Jesus as saying that a man who lusts after a woman other than his wife has committed adultery with his heart. But he made it clear that this is adultery with his heart. Jesus, the practicing and knowledgeable Jewish rabbi, would never equate actual adultery with adultery with one's heart. And if someone believes the two are morally identical, why not start asking candidates if they have ever lusted for any woman other than their wife?

In choosing a president of the United States, adultery would greatly matter to me is if it were engaged in indiscreetly. I don't trust the integrity or conscience of a man or woman who publicly humiliates his or her spouse.

Beyond that, I do not want to know anything about the sexual life of any candidate. Media reporting or questioning about candidates' sexual lives constitutes a form of hypocrisy so deep that the English language does not have a word for it. Media people report on the sexual lives of candidates — for virtually any public office — on the grounds that since these politicians have great power, the public needs to know all about them. Yet, they offer no insight into their own sexual lives, even though some in the news media are far more powerful than almost any politician except the president of the United States. If we cannot trust a candidate who committed adultery, then why can we trust a news reporter or editor who has committed adultery?

The only thing this preoccupation with candidates' sexual lives has achieved is to ensure that some of the best, brightest, finest and most honest men in America never run for office.

Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show and is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of four books, most recently "Happiness Is a Serious Problem" (HarperCollins). His website is DennisPrager.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
"We have no reason to believe that men who have committed adultery are less likely to be great leaders or that men who have always been faithful are more likely to be great leaders."

True we don't. And I think generally most Americans agree with that sentiment. However, in recent years, conservative candidates for office have increasingly cloaked themselves in arguments for character in lieu of intellectual positions. The GOP appeal to many voters for many candidates has been built on the "elect a good man (or woman) and good things will happen" instead of open debates on policy initiatives and ideas.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that appeal, and it works. But it does make adultery challenging to a candidate running in the "character over ideas" party. Adultery is a direct challenge to a candidates' character, and if character is the currency that fuels conservative voting appeal, it will matter to those voters if the candidate has committed adultery.

Of course, in Cain's case, the charge of adultery comes on the heels of a series of other charges, all of which did not win him character points with his base. Those other charges, if true, demonstrate at least an occasional tendency to abuse power. I'd say that's something relevant for consideration in our representation.

But this was the most troubling paragraph in this post:

"Media reporting or questioning about candidates' sexual lives constitutes a form of hypocrisy so deep that the English language does not have a word for it. Media people report on the sexual lives of candidates — for virtually any public office — on the grounds that since these politicians have great power, the public needs to know all about them. Yet, they offer no insight into their own sexual lives, even though some in the news media are far more powerful than almost any politician except the president of the United States. If we cannot trust a candidate who committed adultery, then why can we trust a news reporter or editor who has committed adultery?"

Classic Straw man. Media report on the sexual lives of candidates because those candidates make character claims both about themselves and sometimes about their opponents. Because these men and women represent a constituency, and serve as a proxy for us all in determining the day's policy and law for the rest of us, it is important for us to know about certain aspects of their lives. Again, as above, is sexual history part of this? I personally don't care much about this part of a person's life, unless that person is positioning themselves as a moral person and attacking the morality of their opponents.

In the days of the JFK White House, reporters generally knew about the president's sex life, but did not see the relevance for reportage. But that was before the conservative revolution of the 1980s and 1990s, in which personal character itself became a campaign issue on the right. Making an issue relevant to the electorate means scrutiny along those same lines in one's own candidacy becomes relevant.

Rick Perry's blunder on national television was inexcusable in part because he had openly criticized President Obama for using a teleprompter. Had he not made those specific charges, chalking up his own blunders to simple gaffes might have been more palatable.

Herman Cain repeatedly denied the allegations brought against him and charged accusers with character assassination. The denials make an affair more of a relevant story for the people. If our politicians are found to blatantly deceive the American people, that finding does undermine the confidence one has in the institution of democratic government itself. ("If he deceives his wife, how easily could he deceive the public ...")

Trying to twist this function reflexively back onto the media? Not a clean fit. It may be that some media personalities promote themselves as individuals of great character, and for those individuals an adulterous affair could be damaging to their reputation. But media practitioners in general are not presenting themselves to the American public as an example of virtue, nor is virtue (in the case of personal relationships) even slightly relevant to gathering information and presenting it to the public.

News media are powerful in that they can affect the way citizens view events, but news media are not an elected representation of the citizenry itself like those who stand for public office in a democracy. Apples and oranges.

Again, I found the general thrust of your argumentation interesting, and I even agree with you on several points. But let's keep the framing more fair.
Comment: #1
Posted by: FormerConservative
Mon Dec 5, 2011 8:11 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Dennis Prager
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 25 May 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 25 May 2012
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 25 May 2012

8 Nov 2011 Optimistic or Pessimistic About America?

28 Dec 2010 What Do Women Want?

20 Jul 2010 NAACP Confirms Election of a Black President Made No Difference