Liberal political consultant has to choose between his politics and his wife.

It’s a Skaldthetical with a long storytelling OP. If you don’t like these, why are you still reading?

Today’s story is about Barry West, a professional political consultant of the liberal persuasion, and his wife, Iris Park, the conservative mayor of the largest city in the state she and Barry reside in. They’ve been married for twenty years. Barry and Iris long ago agreed to some rules designed to put their marriage ahead of their careers. Iris would never mention Barry or her marriage in a political context; Barry would never work for a candidate opposing her; Iris would never campaign against a candidate Barry was working for; neither of them would ever allow their children (both adopted, incidentally) to be used for political gain; and so forth. Neither of them has ever broken these rules.

Iris is running for state governor. Barry is keeping track of the polls and in his professional opinion, this election will be extremely close–decided more than anything else by voter turnout. For obvious reasons he is sitting out this election, which is something of a shame: Iris’s opponent is an old friend and ally of his, and pretty much Barry’s dream candidate for governor. More than that: as much as he loves Iris, she’s the last person he wants in the governor’s mansion, and though he is silent publicly and supportive at home, in the voting booth he plans to vote against her.

Iris only narrowly won the Republican primary. She has some problems with her base, you see, as she went on record several times in the campaign as opposing abstinence-only sex education and supporting initiatives designed to teach safer sex and distribute condoms in schools. But despite her position on sex-ed, Iris also opposes abortion rights in most circumstances. She’s gone on record as believing that, if abortion is allowed at all, the mother should be required to wait two days before getting one and to first view an ultrasound of the “baby” (she refuses to use the word fetus), adding that she believes the majority of women who have an abortion come to regret it mightily later. Even rape and incest cannot justify killing an unborn child, Iris says; abortion should be allowed only to save the mother’s life.

Less than a week before the election, Barry is accosted by a reporter for a major newspaper in the state. The reporter says he’s heard a rumor that Iris was cheated on Barry decades ago, while they were in college, got pregnant, and had an abortion. Can Barry confirm or deny that?

Barry’s impulse is to punch the reporter in the throat. Sitting on his hands instead, he says that Iris has never cheated on him, much less been forced to have an abortion because of it. But while that’s all true, it also skirts the issue–because Iris **did **have an abortion in her teens. It wasn’t the result of an affair; she and Barry weren’t lovers at the time. She was molested and impregnated by an uncle, and her parents got the family doctor to perform the procedure and hush up the incident. It’s something Iris never talks about, something that took her years of therapy to get over.

Barry doesn’t say anything the incest and abortion out loud, of course. But the reporter notices that Barry didn’t quite say that Iris never had an abortion. So he presses the issue: “Mr. West, are you saying that Ms. Park DID have an abortion at some time in her life?”

Barry’s a quick thinker. In the space of an eyeblink, he realizes that, if a credible story about Iris’s abortion comes out at this late date, it will cause a defection in her already-shaky ranks, and quite likely cost her the election. On the other hand, she’s his wife, the mother of his children; he hates the idea of torpedoing her.

What should Barry do, and why?

Unlikely as this scenario may be, “Neither of them has ever broken the rules.”

Why start now?

“You’ll have to ask my wife.” Barry is not the appropriate person to be answering this question under any circumstances (assuming that he and Iris have not devised a specific strategy for this stuation beforehand). Based on the terms of their agreement, Barry should not be involving himself directly in his wife’s campaign. If he does anything to cost her the election, he is a truly scummy human being. If he opposed her views and wanted to work against her, he should have made that clear from the beginning.

“No, I’m not saying that,” and walk on.

If the reporter persists, throat punching remains an option.

If Barry’s a political consultant worth even a tiny fraction of his salt, he knows how to not answer that question, including the one before it (which is bordering credulity believing he responded to).

I think the throat punch should have been the first club out of the bag.

Throat punching is not an option, for obvious reasons. The situation calls for a non-answer, something like “I believe my wife has made her position on the issue perfectly clear” and then disengaging. After the election, if the reporter happens to have some unfortunate accident, perhaps involving flying monkeys, well…I suppose that would be sad.

Note that he was Barry was accosted by the reporter, which to mean implies that he was ambushed. I envision him sitting in a bar watching a basketball game when the reporter sidles up beside him. And it’s possible that refusing to answer the reporter will simply encourage him to dig deeper. We in the Pragmatic Community call for an out-and-out lie.

I’ve noticed that when a PR man is asked a question he doesn’t want to answer, he always pretends it was some other question and answers that.

When it comes to his wife running for office he has clearly been marked as a non-combatant. The fact that he has stayed in his role for 20 years is his armor. All he has to say is “I don’t answer questions about my wife to the press.” If they try to spin it as evasive it can be clearly shown that he has always answered like that.

Throat-punching is always an option. Shooting the nosy bastard will only get you talked about.

But Miller nailed it.

Why the hell did he say that? If he were a quick thinker, hell, if he were a slow thinker with any level of media savvy at all he should know that his answer to that should be “No Comment.” Or, as a political operative who has and wants to keep a good relationship with the press “you know I don’t comment on my wife or her elections. But I’m looking forward to interviews with my next candidate. Tell your boss ‘hello.’” Saying anything at all makes me think that he’s kind of an idiot. And not that good at his job.

At the point where he has answered the previous question, he needs to start saying some variation of “No comment.”

No, it isn’t. Punching the guy will put a non-story in the headlines and could cost the wife the election.

“Mr. West, are you saying that Ms. Park DID have an abortion at some time in her life?”

“No. Now get away from me, and don’t come back.”

Regards,
Shodan

So he “defends her honor” and gets his guy a better shot at winning. A pragmatist would call that a “win-win.”

Say “No comment” until the reporter gets bored/goes away.

True. But everybody makes mistakes. As the OP says he was accosted and sitting this election out, and the reporter asked him a question calculated (or at least likely) to provoke a punch in the schnozz. I can easily see how restraining that impulse (which, as Oak implies, is the single most important thing he has to do) caused him to err.

ETA: That said, I’m not sure punching the guy in the throat would cost Iris the election. It’s going to lead to an exchange something like “Mr. West, why did you punch that reporter from the Commercial Appeal in the throat?” to which Barry would reply, “He called my wife a whore.” The next question will be, “Oh, we got that, we’re just wondering why you didn’t punch him in the nads.”

I’m not going to give an easy answer, because I have a hard time imagining being married to someone whom I believe is going to do harm to large sections of the public. My heart doesn’t work like that.

Instead, I’m going to say that Barry needs to make the OP’s calculation literal: is he willing to abandon his wife right now for the sake of preventing a public harm? Is he so sure she’ll harm the public that he’ll lose his family for it, causing immense emotional distress to a handful of people in the process? So sure that he’ll abandon his own sense of personal integrity in order to prevent that harm?

Because maybe he’ll decide that’s the right thing to do, and if he does, I won’t fault him for it. Nor will I fault him if he decides he can’t do that. It’s not an easy calculus.

“If you have a question about my wife, I’d suggest you ask her, as she’s the one running for office. Enjoy the rest of your day.”

He should ask the reporter when he stopped raping babies, then quickly move away.
It’s his wife’s question to answer and they are a family. Family comes first in my opinion.