However, as regards this level of politician I think you are talking about people with massive egos if not outright egomaniacs (mostly). It takes a certain sort of person who is willing to go through the hell that is an election and to hold a national office under constant and intense scrutiny. I think the ego necessary for gaining political office very often (not always) is the same sort who will cheat on their wife.
Power corrupts. Add in their ego. Consider that power seems an aphrodisiac to women. People seeking to gain political favors or advantage for themselves may well ply politicians with pretty women. Heck, the disgraced congressman in the OP was presumably diddling a lobbyist. The presumption being she was trading sex for favorable treatment (whether true or not I guess is still a question mark).
So, take an egomaniac, give him power, throw pretty women at him and guess what happens.
I am not condoning it by any means but it is hardly surprising and if history is any guide not surprising at all. Practically par for the course.
In the end I agree with others. I will not judge a leader by his peccadilloes. If he rants and raves about the evils of sex and spouts family values and fidelity and what not to get elected then I glee in their fall from “grace” (if they ever had it). For the rest that is between them and their wife. (Even more egregious, to me, are the ones who rant and rave about the evils of homosexuality then go give tug jobs in airport bathrooms.)
If anything I am saddened more by the wives of these men not kicking them to the curb as they deserve. Still, their decision. Had a discussion tonight actually on whether Hillary Clinton should have left Bill. I could see her wanting to and she’d be right but then she had her own agenda for political power which was not served by divorcing Bill. Is she any worse than him in this case?
I should point out, our Replacement Governor promptly admitted to several affairs as he took his seat. Nobody thinks any less of that blind moron for that.
I don’t expect my politicians to be perfect, but if each candidate were equal in every other regard, I’d be much more inclined to vote for someone who came out and stated that they were going to have sex with whomever they were able to than someone who pretended they weren’t. I think we all need to just admit that we’d all like to have as much sex with as many people as possible.
No, but if the affair goes public the politician has to think about his opponents mights use that knowledge. If Bill Clinton hadn’t gotten a hummer in the White House the Republicans wouldn’t have been able to use it as ammunition against him. The Lewinsky matter took up a significant amount of Clinton’s time while in office. I’m certainly not saying the Republicans should have made a big deal out of the affair but they did. So maybe politicians should avoid doing things that will hamper their efforts while in office.
I guess it’s about peoples’ notions of integrity and common sense. Clinton (many thought) should have had more self-control and more sense than to give his opponents such a big stick to beat him with. If (the reasoning seems to run) Mister X can’t keep his pecker in his pants when the downside of getting caught is so obvious then should we entrust him with the responsibilities of public office ?
I disagree. First, I’d like to see a cite that half of people in marriages cheat.
Second, if they don’t publicly espouse “family values” and maintain their jobs by promising to make America return to a never-really-happened 1950s, they’re not hypocrites, just fallible.
Anybody recent where a sex scandal had ended their political careers did something hypocritical (besides breaking their marriage vows). Also, DuVall, as someone else pointed out, was fraternizing with women whose jobs were to influence legislation. Maybe not hypocritical, but a ‘fireable’ offense.
If the American public was more mature about such things, politicians would never get voted in and supported on platforms espousing ‘traditional family values’ and fighting against same-sex marriage, sex ed and reproductive rights. It’s like women who picket outside the abortion clinic until they need one (and after it’s done), or fundamentalist religious men who go out and get hammered and sleep around. They are not in any place to instruct people on their personal lives, and yet that is where they’ve claimed the moral high ground. (I also find the poor impulse control appalling. I don’t necessarily think a cheater is a bad politician, but someone stupid enough to risk his career and relationship with his wife and two small children for some ass? Not smart.)
A really interesting analysis of why Americans get upset about sexual scandal and the formula for surviving one is The art of the public grovel. Once Clinton figured out the necessary ritual, he came out looking good–but he was floundering before that. Jimmy Swaggart did it once, and then totally failed the second time by changing tactics. Teddy Kennedy probably could have survived, but didn’t understand the ritual and lost his shot at the presidency. These recent guys have obviously not read this book.
No one seems to have mentioned the purely practical side of getting busted: Anyone who runs against you (or just publicly opposes you) has been given a lot of ammunition, especially if you’re a family-values pol. Your job and next election just became exponentially harder. Vitter will almost certainly lose, and possibly get primaried.
When there’s a quick resignation, I suspect much of it is simple recognition that you can’t keep going on as you were before, and resignation is the less ignoble end of your career than a campaign spent answering questions about whether or not you’re still misbehavin’. There’s also, I think, a desire to get out of the public spotlight as quickly as possible. Duvall’s out of the mainstream press already; Vitter still gets mentioned as ‘that guy with the prostitutes’.
Actually, the per-year rate of infidelity is about 10% and the lifetime incidence for people now in their 60’s is 15-30%; see here.
That number seems awfully low. I think we can safely assume that nobody who has been faithful will lie to a survey and state they have cheated, but that a not insignificant amount of people (including myself) would lie if they indeed had cheated.
Yeah well… you’re weird. Or a woman. Or both.
My completely anecdotal evidence is this: Every woman I’ve ever asked, except one, has admitted to cheating at least once. I’m guesstimating I’ve asked 10-14 women. Over half the men I’ve asked has admitted to cheating ( 8-10 people asked) and I have personally aided and abetted in 3 married women and a bunch of in-a-relationship women doing it.
I’m not ruling out that Swedish people are cheating bastards (in fact I think that is likely), but the figures for Americans seem suspiciously low.
Politicians get beautiful women throwing themselves at them all the time. Sometimes they make a catch. Bush 1, Eisenhower,Kennedy,Clinton,and many other presidents have been involved. I am not sure what it has to do with governing. But, when you run on a platform of religion and truth, it is much,much worse. It becomes betraying your principles, betraying your religion and betraying your values as add ons to just getting laid. Sanford was far worse than just sex. Clinton was not running on his higher religious values. The repubs are. That makes a huge difference.
What would a strategy of acceptance toward ® Politicians being found out cheating/being homo/wathcing porn result in?
If the next time an ® Politician was busted on a “moral” issue like this, the Democratic response was NOT “Look at the hypocrite” but rather “Guys, this has nothing to do with his performance as a legislator and should be a private issue between him and his partner”. What would the result be? This is not a rethorical question or a trap by the way, I’m just wondering.
Like Sanford using state money to see his girlfriend in South America and not being available to do his job while he was having an affair. That is different.
Politicians define their jobs. When they talk of religion, loyalty to family as part of their campaigns, they will be held to higher standard.
Similarly, a member of the Spanish inquisition found to be practising actual witchcraft should be let off the hook because that doesn’t impact his ability to torture little old ladies whom the neighbors have taken a dislike to.
I would submit that people tend to gravitate to people who share their values.
Drinkers hang around with other drinkers, sports fans hang around with other sports fans, church goers hang around with other church goers, etc. etc. etc.
You are probably around a lot of people who share similar attitudes about cheating and sex. Therefore the numbers you personally observe are skewed.