In the wake of Weiner-Gate II, some columnists have said that the fact that his wife is staying with him, even after continued indiscretions, may bolster his chances to continue to make a run for the NYC Mayoral seat.
Even going back to Clinton’s first presidential election campaign and the alleged affairs with Gennifer Flowers, et al, the infamous 60 minutes interview where Hillary said that she was “standing by her man” some have credited to Clinton’s victory, that without such support he would have flamed out.
So why is that? Why couldn’t a candidate in today’s society just say that his sexual lfe is private, and if they can’t work it out with their spouse, then so be it. It really has no bearing on his or her ability to function in the office. There are numerous successful people that have been divorced or single.
Why are most candidates for office expected to not be divorced and maintain monogamous married relationships?
“Vote for him? Hell no. I couldn’t even trust him to walk to the corner without picking up a hooker,”, said the candidate’s wife, when asked for comment.
From a familial sort of view, having a marital squabble while trying to campaign is not going to be good for either your campaign or your marriage.
If you dump your wife in the middle of a campaign, that doesn’t play well with voters (why dumping your wife before or after the campaign is ok remains a mystery).
Last, if the wife says she’ll stand by her man, that’s a signal to some voters that “this guy can’t be that bad if she’s sticking with him, maybe the rumors are false”, while if she won’t support him, you get “man, if he’s so bad she won’t support him, what else do we not know?”
It’s more that they consider the candidate’s moral worthiness to be a substantive issue. If you consider an elected offical to be an actual representative of his electorate, it makes sense: he or she should mirror the values of the people he or she is representing, and not just their political positions.
You’re arguing theory, I’m arguing practice. In theory the spouse doesn’t need to be involved with the campaign any more than a housewife needs to be involved in a traveling salesman’s job. In practice, if she’s not supportive it’s a major drag on the candidate.
The spouse can be seen as a proxy for the voters in evaluating the candidate’s judgment. If the person that presumably knows the candidate best decides, “this was a forgivable mistake by a person whose integrity is basically sound,” that benefits the candidate with the electorate. If the spouse conversely decides that the candidate is impulsively self-destructive, many voters will be turned off.
I’m not sure that’s as sharp a distinction as you’re making it out to be (taking out the emotive adjectives).
I’m not sure that’s as sharp a distinction as you’re making it out to be; in theory, people derive their political positions from their values; “political positions” are simply values applied to specific issues.
My friend’s mother was standing for elections to Patliament recently and he often found himself substituting for her at some rallies and events. Don’t knock it.
Is there really any correlation between a candidate’s or leader’s ability to keep professional commitments and his/her ability to keep personal commitments? Anecdotes are not data, but MLK seemed pretty darn professionally committed, but not so personally pure. Clinton is considered a pretty good president, but awful on the personal front. Has Vitter’s professional commitment come under question? JFK, Churchill, even Roosevelt all had personal issues, right?
On the other hand, Nixon was, as far as I know, committed to his wife but not so committed to the Constitution.
I understand why people would look to the personal life as an indicator, but, at least anecdotally, it seems like a terrible indicator.
Pathological liars make poor spouses and poor public servants.
The wife may ‘elect’ to stay, but the public should consider NOT electing a pathological liar to an office requiring the public’s trust.
The problem is not the sex. The problem is … he’s a skilled liar.
If the candidate is such a jerk that even their spouse won’t stand by them, isn’t that a pretty broad hit to voters that they’re a really big jerk?
If your wife hates you, there’s a high probability that I’m not going to like you either. Maybe it’s the wife that’s the pathological one, but why did you marry an irrational person? My personal belief is that it’s never one person who’s the sane an innocent one and the other the crazy and evil one. If one person is crazy and evil then the spouse invariably has something or other wrong with them.
It’s precisely the “zone of privacy” that makes spousal reaction so important.
Many voters, in hearing of affairs and sex scandals, will take the attitude that this is a matter between candidate and spouse, and that the spouse is in the best position to judge.
If the spouse (usually a woman) stands by the candidate (usually a man), this is taken as a signal that the behavior (a) wasn’t really that bad; or (b) was a one-off for which the man has made amends and will not do again; or (c) should be overlooked in view of the man’s many other outstanding qualities.
If the woman files for a messy divorce, this is taken as a signal that the behavior really was jerkish and repetitive and that the man is a loser.
So, all in all, if I wish to stand for Parliament, I should eschew the whole “wife” business and settle for concubine?
I think I will have to apply for Italian citizenship.
Did the CIA not once attempt to blackmail an Italian (or French) leader with pictures of him with some tart or the other, only to have him say “nice picture, can I have a copy”?
(As memorably portrayed in Homeland with the closeted gay Saudi Diplomat)
It’s also a ‘management’ scenario. People are supposed to manage their home lives. Whether or not one approves, the concept is that if somebody cannot manage their home life, since they had chosen all of the participants and co-directed the events to the same, since the spousal/family unit is arguably the closest thing to the candidate, they should have some sort of impression of success. If the candidates are such screw-ups that they cannot even manage their own lives, why should the public pay them to manage the public welfare?
Sometimes I wonder if things like this are all that important to voters, or if it’s only after the papers and other media have told us how damaging something will be to their chances that we all decide they’re right.
Perhaps voters are superficial? Maybe people look at a candidate and the first thing they judge, even before knowing the candidates positions, is appearances.
If the person looks wholesome and well groomed (no facial hair), wears a business suit and a tie, has an accomplished and professional-looking spouse, a couple of well-adjusted kids, a cute dog, and goes to church; then they pass the smell test. A candidate NOT having all those things will deserve more scrutiny to see what’s wrong with them - because we all know - this is the “ideal” American family.
It’s trying to maintain this wholesome image that keeps spouses supporting these candidates - and each campaign manager knows if that image cannot be carefully managed, they will not get out of the starting gate with voters.
