We keep reading the news about leaders American and otherwise, doing nasty things they clearly should not be doing, and wondering how much of a man’s bad behavior in the bedroom, hotel suite, or Twitter feed is the proper business of public debate.
The benchmarks, we suppose, range from JFK to FDR – and perhaps even to Mrs. Roosevelt. We the American public know a great deal today about the things each of these three iconic Americans did, in some cases with whom, that we are universally glad not to have known at the time of the doing.
Yes, hypocrisy is ugly, to say nothing of the various body parts implicated in any of a few recent public-figure scandals. But there ought to be a line somewhere about what disqualifies a man or a woman for public office, or for our vote.
DSK certainly crossed that line: assault is assault, if that proves to be the truth. And Rep. Wiener, the rank foolishness of the photos sent out across the vast electronic seas makes you not so much a moral danger, but perhaps a mental one. The departed governor of California surely deserves hell from his family – current and soon-to-be-former – but had he done brilliantly in office, who ought really to care come voting day?
We feel, in the final analysis, that we know too much about the wrong things about these men, and still not enough about their fortitude on the public behalf, their creativity in managing our collective concerns, and their true hearts. More of the clarity and commitments of, say, an FDR or a JFK, and less of pandering interest in the various underpants of all involved, would serve the nation well.
The.American.Word. 
Comments
I am not sure that you are right about what we should or should not know about our political leaders. Misconduct in the private lives of political leaders can eventually lead to their leadership being compromised by opportunists who, when they find out the dirty truth, sometimes attempt to use this truth as a means of blackmail or, perhaps worse, to attempt to direct policy. We know that J. Edgar Hoover, that “pillar of American justice” who headed the FBI for four decades, told JFK that he knew about his tawdry business with Sam Giancana’s group of floozies. Why do you think he told him this? Out of the goodness of his heart? (J. Edgar Hoover had a heart?) While I consider JFK to be, at least in terms of what he wanted for America, one of the great American presidents, for someone of the power of J. Edgar Hoover to have “dirt” on him because he couldn’t keep his fly up is very disconcerting. Your argument sounds like an argument in which it is only the end that counts. If we had found out about JFK and FDR, then the result would have changed and in a negative way. Therefore, we needn’t be concerned about the means (dalliances and relationships with some pretty shady people would be a part of the means, especially for JFK). I do agree that in terms of HOW the media covers these stories, it is often grotesque and seemingly uninterested in the consequences, but I do believe that it is important to demand the truth, not shades of gray, from our political leaders. Do we need to dig into their lives? No. Should they tell the truth if they engage in the type of buffoonery that “The Terminator” and Mr. Weiner engaged in? You better believe it. And that should be reported. Because it is not necessarily the act itself, but the unbelieveably poor judgment that went into the act and the lying that we as citizens should certainly be concerned about.
I think that the French have it right on this count. Yes, when called out on personal transgressions, the leaders in question admit it and say, in essence, Who cares? Truth does matter, and Wiener should get points for being clear, in ways that someone like Bill Clinton, for example was certainly not. But we have to avoid the slippery slope that could lead, if I follow your argument, to saying – as was said many times in the past – Mr. X can’t be a candidate for this job because he is gay, and that makes him a security threat because someone might blackmail him. So gay is not good for this job, not because we don’t like gay people, but because other people don’t. Not our fault, just bending to the public will.
I certainly agree that there is a slippery slope, but what I am talking about, again, is judgment, and I think that more and more people are realizing, albeit more slowly than I would like, that being gay is not about poor judgment but is a part of who a person is at his or her core, This is not the case as it relates to the tomfoolery and, frankly, derelict behavior of these politicians, who while supposedly doing their jobs are doing “other things,” something that I think is being lost in these debates. The public will, if it is to impact the decision on Weiner remaining, would not necessarily be wrong in this instance, but would certainly be wrong if it pushed him out of office just because he was gay, something that one could argue he would have been born being. I think the slope can be made more sticky, and that we can ascertain the difference in these situations and point out the difference to those who are not so astute, just as we have had to as it relates to every group who has ever been victimized by discrimination.
Very interesting. I think I see and like the what you do versus who or what you are distinction. But I remain reluctant to say that some actions are not OK because they might lead a third part, like Hoover, to have sway over you in order to keep your secret. I think judging the act – and the person judgment behind the act, as you say – is more the point.
Very interesting. Love this discussion and I love this blog. Thank you, Peter.