In Defense of Newt

Posted by Bob Lord

This one has the potential to piss off both progressive and conservative readers, so here goes.

I’m hearing progressives lambaste Newt Gingrich for his multiple divorces, infidelity, and the statements of an obviously bitter ex-spouse. I not only find it wrong, I find it stupid, as we progressives absolutely blow an opportunity when we do so.

I know, it’s not the behavior, it’s the hypocrisy. Sorry, that just doesn’t fly. You can’t attack the hypocrisy without attacking the behavior, but once you attack the behavior, the focus becomes the behavior, not the hypocrisy. Worse yet, if you’re a progressive, once you attack the behavior, you yourself are a hypocrite. Besides, the hypocrisy justification is a total stretch, and we all know it.

Instead of engaging in self-righteous, moralistic blather like ass-hat, bible thumping right-wingers, we ought to be exposing how ridiculous the criticism of Newt’s behavior is and how inappropriate it is to include such criticism in the political discourse. First, the behavior. What exactly did Newt do that is the least bit out of the ordinary? Is it his three marriages? Are we setting a standard that it’s ok to have one marriage fail, but if two fail it’s a disqualifier? Most marriages ultimately fail. If you add the couples who are either emotionally or financially unable to end their failed marriages to the actual divorce rate, it’s not even close. And second marriages are no different than first marriages on this front. They may be worse. So do the math. You’ll find that two failed marriages is all too common in our society.

If we defend Newt’s multiple marriages rather than condemn them, we accomplish several things. First, we inoculate progressive politicians who’ve had multiple marriages. Second, we deny those politicians (Romney and Santorum, for example) who were lucky enough to have their first marriages succeed put themselves on a pedestal. We’ve already seen Romney use his long-term marriage to promote his candidacy. Do we really want to infuse that with credibility by condemning Newt because he and the woman he married at age 19 grew apart? Most importantly, we fight back against all the religious zealots who get some sadistic thrill demanding that people remain in miserable marriages. It’s deadening to see unhappiness needlessly inflicted on people this way by corrupt religious leaders. When we condemn a candidate for the mere fact that he’s had divorces, we empower the crazy-ass religious leaders who engage in this practice.

Repeating the adultery charge and discussing the particulars, like the length of Newt’s affair with Callista, makes no sense either. Affairs happen. Making assumptions as to why they do or, worse yet, demonizing the adulterer when we have no idea as to what happened, is wrong. Usually, affairs happen because marriages fail. Yes, the “right” thing to do is to divorce first, before falling in love again. But couples take years, sometimes a decade or more, to end failing marriages. Why? Because divorces are painful to the participants and can be damaging to kids, so the marriage typically must be beyond dead before a couple pulls the plug. What happens during those years is largely circumstantial, and complicated. We should resist imposing standards that are both difficult to meet and irrelevant to a person’s ability to lead. To make adultery a factor in elections sets a standard that can be brutally difficult to live up to, and a persona‘s failure to do so has no bearing on whether he or she is fit to lead. After all, we’ve had a few presidents who failed this test miserably, yet had very successful presidencies.

So, if we condemn Newt for his adultery, we may regret it when of ours, whom we want to see succeed, fails the same test. Wouldn’t it be better to vocally denounce the moralizing now, so we’ll have consistency on our side when the next Bill Clinton comes along?

Last, I guess, is the ex-wife’s charge that Newt asked for an open marriage. Hopefully, we can recognize that there are two sides to every story and, when we hear only one side, we’re usually not getting all the information. The trouble is, when an ex-spouse does a tell all, the candidate is in an impossible situation. Offering the other side of the story would be to get back into the mud with the ex-spouse, which is certain to be a losing proposition. A simple denial, and the accompanying failure to address the specifics, can be interpreted as an implicit admission. It oughtn’t be. We should take it as a given that when an ex-spouse speaks, there’s likely more to it than we’re being told. So, even if we believe that raising open marriage as an option is a disqualifier, relying on what an ex-spouse may or may not have distorted and/or ripped entirely out of context should be a non-starter. We just shouldn’t go there.

Progressives are being presented here with a great opportunity to forego short-term political interests and put a big dent in the religious right’s hyper-moralistic agenda. It would be a shame to have it go to waste destroying a candidate who Obama easily should beat anyhow on real issues that make a difference in the lives of Americans.