When President Clinton had nowhere to hide from his affair with Monica Lewinsky, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich vociferously condemned the President and demanded that he resign his office. It was only years later that Gingrich confessed that he himself was entangled in an adulterous affair while he was busy attacking Clinton. One of the other politicians who led the charge to get Clinton to resign was Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada). I don't recall Ensign being part of that outcry over ten years ago, but the fact that he was is now clear because just this week, Senator Ensign confessed to having an affair with the wife of one of his staff members. So the press is having a field day now with his apparent double standard.
Last year, former Democratic golden boy and presidential candidate John Edwards came out about his illicit activities with a campaign photographer and producer. Predictably, those on the right side of the aisle had a field day tearing Edwards apart, especially since his wife Elizabeth had garnered sympathy during the primaries with her ongoing battle against breast cancer. There were calls for his resignation, though, because he no longer was an office holder. But there were plenty of bold predictions that Edwards' lack of self-discipline and poor judgment had killed his hopes of becoming the Democrats' choice for president someday.
And then we have the most recent case of Gov. Mark Sanford (R-S. Carolina). Not long ago, he grabbed headlines with his libertarian-like rejection of federal bailout money for his state's schools, but he was overruled by the courts. Three days ago, articles began popping up in the papers and on the internet, stating that he had gone missing this past weekend. His wife said she didn't know where he was but wasn't worried. His lieutenant governor (and political rival) said it was highly inappropriate for the governor just to disappear like that without letting him or other state officials know of his whereabouts. His staff at first also said that they had no idea where he was, but then began stating that Gov. Sanford had always been an 'outdoorsy' guy and that he was somewhere on the 2,500 mile Appalachian Trail, where he was hiking to recover from that recent legislative donnybrook. Like vultures drawn to a decaying carcass, this benign mystery began to attract growing numbers of Democrats and reporters in general as Sanford continued to be missing in action and further evidence seemed to point to a remote airport, not a remote hiking trail.
This latest politician's nightmare came to a head today when Gov. Sanford called a press conference and admitted that he'd been in Argentina trying to wrap up a months-long affair he'd been having with a close friend in that country. Apparently, his wife was told of his unfaithfulness five months ago and they've been seeking help and counsel. He announced that he had resigned his position as chair of the Republican Governors Association so that he would have more time to figure out what this all means for his marriage and his family. Repeatedly, he admitted that he had violated "God's moral law," was now suffering the consequences of that failure, and apologized explicitly and profusely.
As if on cue, those on the left side of the aisle are not surprisingly screaming "Hypocrite!" and demanding that Senator Ensign follow his oft-declared "Promise Keeper" Christian credentials and resign, but thus far he has said nothing to indicate that he will do this. Those mainly on the left are also calling for Gov. Sanford to resign since he clearly has failed to live up to his own conservative, Christian standards.
Sitting here in my study, all of this is like watching some really lame ping pong match, where the spectators are either major 'homers' who would rather drink acid than ever support the other team's player or they are objective observers who are completely turned off by the blatant hypocrisy of both sides. If someone really believes that cheating on one's spouse or cruising for a sex partner in a public men's room are clear signs that the guilty party has violated the public trust, disregarded their vows of holy matrimony and shown themselves to be such flawed human beings that have disqualified themselves from ever holding public office, then that standard should be applied to all public leaders, even the 'golden guys/gals' of your favorite team, right? Or do we each have a hidden well of unconditional mercy and grace for those we see as the standard bearers of our particular party or issues? Talking heads on the far right side of the radio dial today were dipping deeply into that reservoir of forebearance as they dealt with Sanford's admission of guilt today and with Ensign's the other day. Pointing a sharper accusing finger at guilty people like Edwards or Clinton is disengenuous at best and hypocritical at worst. And for talking heads on the other side of the dial to be gleefully going after Ensign and Sanford this week reeks too with the same flawed and biased double-standard. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" seems like a concept from an alien planet rather than a fundamental teaching from the book that both sides, especially the right, like to cite.
Clearly, the history of the world is proof positive that all of our leaders are flawed human beings, some more than others. Some more obviously than others. Yet some proved to be solid and needed leaders in spite of their obvious shortcomings. Others leaders on the public stage apparently had inconsequential flaws, with some even being paragons of virtue, even Christian values. Yet some of those proved to be horrible leaders.
As this latest pair of scandals plays itself out around the watercoolers and air-waves, I am doing my darndest not to revel in the trevails of Ensign or Sanford in the same way that I didn't revel in the messes that Clinton and Edwards made for themselves. As fellow flawed human beings who just don't have our sins and shortcomings dragged before the public eye, we should know that we have established an impossible standard for all of our leaders to follow. Some have gone too far, claiming far more perfection than is humanly possible and Scripturally provable, in an effort to garner votes, worship, and confidence. They add to their moral resumes by being some of the earliest and loudest voices to condemn those who have been exposed. How can I show mercy to those who have been merciless? That's where I struggle. Or how can I be understanding and forgiving when the adulterous leader isn't repentant, doesn't return to the marriage and family, but instead chooses to be with the other illicit party? Honestly, that's where I really don't know how to respond or even how to feel.
My hope is that each of us who claim to follow Jesus will never stop struggling to apply God's Golden Rule evenly to everybody, even our worst enemies or our most hated political foes. Let's not let partisanship ruin our witness for Jesus.
Comments (9)
If memory serves me correctly, the late Rev. Jerry Falwell was unrelenting in his condemnation of Clinton but had Gingrich on his TV show and extended grace to him following his public confession.
amen!
Another great post Ken! Denial plays a huge part in perpetuating inappropriate behavior. You keep telling yourself it will never happen to you and one day you wake up and the truth is right there in your face. You are right on when you say we have established an impossible standard for our leaders to follow. I spent years trying to avoid the pedestal only to find myself plunging from one. It was a team effort. My pride deluded me into believing it would never happen to me. Add to that a need we have to believe that our leaders are larger than life. Leaders and "followers" (I really don't like that word) all have a need to see ourselves and each other through the lens of "sober judgment".
well said!
Great post.
I liked the majority of your post, but you skimmed over why Clinton was legally pursued. It wasn't because of his marital indiscretions, but because he lied under oath. It really surprises me that people just gloss over that nowadays. If we have no standard of truth for testimony in our legal system, then our legal system does us no good at all.
I turned on the radio and looked on the internet- looks like the right talking heads aren't apologizing for Sanford, but are condemning him just as the left is doing. I didn't hear or read any dipping into that reservoir of forbearance.
I think the problem is this: In the US we have a culture of individuality. What that means is that when people "make it" they attribute their success to their ability, personal qualities, whatever. Is it a surprise, then, that these same successful people, be they successful in business, sports, entertainment, or politics, feel that they have the skills to "get away" with their behavior; that traditional rules don't apply to them? They have proven themselves more skillful in other ways, why not this, too?
This leads to cheating on the athletic field, embezzlement in the board room, and yes, cheating on spouses in all realms. It doesn't matter whether or not Sanford lied under oath, the underpinnings of his behavior were the same as those for Bill Clinton, the belief that normal rules don't apply to them. And we should not be surprised that people believe this.
I found your site through a search on "truth, war, Iraq" etc...It's interesting you are a Christian. I am also. I think dealing with political leaders is different from dealing with people on a day to day level in life. Politicians' jobs require that they are accountable to the people for their decisions. The higher up, the more accountable. or so it seems it should be.
Many Christians idolize the Republican Party, Bush and base their views on mass media propoganda. In reality, most people are not even aware of the main agenda which cuts accross the democratic and republican lines.
I wrote an article which you may find shocking but is based on documented resources: Declassified: The Truth Will Make You Free