Why the GOP base still cares about ‘high infidelity’

June 21, 2006

I’ve received some terrific feedback thus far on my Washington Monthly article — thanks to everyone for all the support — and there’s one point in the piece that I wanted to flesh out in more detail.

The article talks a bit about how the [tag]adultery[/tag] issue isn’t on the political world’s radar right now, but the GOP base still cares a great deal about candidates’ personal “baggage.” As mentioned in the piece, Carrie Gordon Earll, a spokesperson for Dobson’s Focus on the Family, told me, “If you have a politician, an elected official, and they can’t be trusted in their own marriage, how can I trust them with the budget? How can I trust them with national security?” There was actually more content along these lines that didn’t quite fit in the finished article.

For example, I also asked Earll about whether so-called “values voters,” who were deeply concerned with infidelity in 2000, would care as much in 2008. “I don’t think this changes with the turn of the clock,” Earll said. “Whether it’s 2000, 2008, or 1994, the issue of fidelity would always be important to a values voter.” She added, “As far as our constituency, infidelity is more than an indiscretion; it is a serious violation of a sacred marriage vow.”

It’s not just Focus on the Family. I spoke with the Family Research Council’s Tom McClusky, a veteran of the Bush/Quayle ’92 and Dole/Kemp ’96 campaigns, who expressed concern about the Republicans sliding down a slippery moral slope.

“It used to be drug use would take someone down, except now everybody just does a wink and says ‘Everybody does it,'” McClusky said. “I would hate to have something like that happen with infidelity…. Defining deviancy down is something that needs to taken into consideration.”

McClusky also told me, “If not a disqualifier, [adultery] is something that would make Christian conservative voters put candidates in an adverse category. It would, most definitely.”

When I first started exploring the issue, my initial thought was that Republicans wouldn’t care about McCain’s, Giuliani’s, and Gingrich’s adultery because a) they’re Republicans; and b) pragmatic concerns about electability out weigh “character” concerns. The more I spoke to leading conservative activists, however, the more I realized my initial assumptions were wrong.

As TV preachers like Pat Robertson never tire of reminding GOP leaders, evangelical Christians make up nearly a third of the Republican base. When these “values voters” are evaluating a crowded field of presidential candidates, they’ll look for qualities that differentiate similarly qualified contenders. It’s easy to imagine such a voter siding with a candidate who has a strong family life over one who cheated on their spouse before getting a divorce.

Digby, who wrote some terrific analysis in response to the article, raised a great point.

How can the religious right come to terms with this? (I ask that only rhetorically. We know that they are hypocrites coming and going.) But this could be a successful wedge issue that forces the religious right to either cop to their true permissiveness on an issue they use as a cudgel to beat liberals over the head, namely the sanctity of marriage. Or it will expose them as the rigid, unrealistic tight-asses they really are, and perhaps brand the GOP further as the party of … unrealistic tight-asses. It’s worth thinking about a little bit.

I couldn’t agree more. Before the article took on a media perspective, my premise was that adultery was going to be a “sleeper issue” (pun intended) in the 2008 campaign. It’s not on the political world’s mind yet, but those religious right activists who vote in Iowa and New Hampshire in January 2008 will have to reconcile political pragmatism with deeply held beliefs about the sanctity of marriage.

To date, [tag]McCain[/tag], [tag]Giuliani[/tag], and [tag]Gingrich[/tag] haven’t had to deal with this kind of personal scrutiny at all. Based on what I found in putting this article together, they’d be smart to come up with a compelling response to these questions now, because they’re going to be asked.

It is sort of hard for one to argue “sanctity of marriage” on the gay issue when one votes in a recidivist adulterer.

  • This will be a test of whether the religious right truly believes that the Repubs are the party of god, and therefore always preferable to any Democrats, or if they really will align themselves with candidates of any party who are on the morally higher road. With Dobson claiming indignation at Bush’s scorn for his agenda, it’ll be interesting to see if the evangelicals sit this one out, back a Dem or begin to unravel their monolithic voting bloc.

  • Republican’ts don’t want to be reminded of the fact that right before the verse in Leviticus 20 that says two gay men who’ve had sex should be put to death are three verses about the laws saying adulterers (especially incestous ones) should be put to death.

    New International Translation, Leviticus 20:

    10 ” ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

    11 ” ‘If a man sleeps with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

    12 ” ‘If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

    13 ” ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

    You don’t see a huge cry out of the evangelical community to put adulterers to death, or even to treat them like second class citizens. But notice, adultery come BEFORE homosexuality in the list of crimes. And only male-on-male anal intercourse at that. Way I read 13, oral sex is okay 😉

  • I don’t vote for candidates based on their spouseworthy qualities. It’s worth noting, however, that it’s not just “tightasses,” to use Digby’s terms, who may find a candidate less attractive based on his or her history of infidelity. Both Gingrich and, to a slightly lesser extent, Giuliani, left their wives in ways that leave a bad taste in the mouth, and I have never felt quite the same about Bill Clinton (and boy, do I miss Bill Clinton) since the whole icky Monica thing broke. Part of the problem with all three of these guys is, in fact, the “icky” factor. I’m a non-christian spittle-flecked lefty, but I sure don’t think a lot of fence-sitting moderate voters will be won over by a subtextual message that Democrats or liberals or progressives think that marital infidelity is unimportant, and that people who disagree are “tightasses.” A better message is that we can’t really judge a candidate with bad marital baggage too harshly because we haven’t been in that relationship, and, more importantly, we shouldn’t think that his/her behavior within marriage is necessarily illustrative of his/her competence at governance. In other words, the fact that they’re not trustworthy as spouses doesn’t mean they can’t handle a budget or national security. Ms. Earll is comparing apples and oranges, but in the bigger picture, she is making a point the Dems had better not ignore.

  • I agree wholeheartedly with Wendy (#4). We’re not so damn liberated that things like keeping one’s promises and being loyal to friends and family aren’t important to us any more. Infamous infidelity may not be a deal breaker, but it can sure make us less eager to shake hands.

  • Just a side note sparked by Bubba’s comment:
    Republicans as the “party of God,” and worried about their “base”?
    Isn’t the Arabic for “Party of God,” Hezbollah?
    Isn’t the Arabic for “the base,” Al Qaeda?

  • Interesting that Leviticus has nothing to say about father-daughter incest, the kind that one woman in six has experienced (and the kind that at least three high officials in the Christian Coalition have been accused of by their daughters, one of whom was Susan Smith who put her sons in a car and sent it into a lake to drown them – her incestuous father was the head of the South Carolina Christian Coalition).

    Gingrich should be put on the public rack for his history: married his high school teacher to get out of the draft, then – after becoming Speaker of the House – served her with divorce papers in the hospital “because she’s too old to be First Lady, and besides, she has cancer.” Then refused to pay alimony and child support despite doing a multi-million dollar book deal, forcing her to seek help from her church to keep the lights and heat on and the mortgage paid on the home of she and his children – all while he was cavorting with wife #2, 20 years his junior and a former staffer he had been fucking for 2 years before the divorce. Then, on the day he stood in public to denounce Clinton for the Lewinsky affair, he started the second affair with a woman as far in age from him as Monica was from Bill, divorcing Wife #2 a year later.

    But then, he’s a good Republican, at least he marries them somewhere along the line, doesn’t he?

    Of all the Republican scumbags, Newt Gingrich is the one I most want to find face down in a back alley, bleeding out from a large-caliber exit wound. So I can kick him in the wound.

  • I would like to think that they would hold republican candidates with infidelity issues just as accountable as they have Clinton but I don’t know if I believe it. Many of these voters are staunch supporters of Bush and the GOP and they don’t seem to hold either to as high a standard as they do Democrats and Clinton.

    It might take twisty-logic and just plain “head in the sand-ism” but I don’t have doubt they would justify the vote for any of these three over the evil Democrats. After all GOP candidates would recieve special “well God loves them anyway,” “everyone is a sinner” dispensations that don’t apply to Democrats who they believe are godless. Call me cynical, but I won’t hold my breath that “values voters” will hold these guys to their past actions, and I will believe it only when I see it.

  • I think if you can cheat on your spouse, you can more easily betray your country. Think of how most marriages begin: the couple swears their allegiance, their trustworthiness, their life to each other. If you can betray that trust, how difficult is it to betray your country? Adulterers can never be fully trusted. It doesn’t mean they shouldn’t hold important offices, it means we should select more trustworthy politicians first.

  • When a republican is “born again” all of the sins of their former lives are forgiven. Rudy Guilani, or John McCain just needs to accept the lord Jesus into their hearts and claim to be born again and all is well.

    I think Newt had already accepted the Lord into his heart at the time of his adultry, however. That means he lied about accepting Jesus, which puts him on the evangelicals list of people not allowed into heaven, or the White house.

  • Adultery will matter as much to “religious” Republican voters as military service matters to “patriotic” Republican voters. They will elect adulterers with just as much alacrity as they elevate draft dodgers to elective office. The GOP is as much about “moral values” as it is “fiscal responsibility”.

  • “Interesting that Leviticus has nothing to say about father-daughter incest, the kind that one woman in six has experienced…”

    I wonder if that is due to the Torah story of, who was it Lot maybe, sleeping with his daughters–some sort of attempt at internal consistency?

  • I’m with Wendy and Jim. It matters to me. I’m not saying it is a litmus test, but it is a human failing – one I would certainly factor in when considering a candidate.

    The factor weighs much more heavily for me if the candidate is dishonest or hypocritical about it. It is one thing to fail at an personal relationship, it is another to be unable to accept responsibilty for said failure. Honesty and personal responsibility *are* something of political litmus tests for me.

    -jjf

  • Fitz, I would also say things like a) the actual facts behind the infidelity matter (e.g. simply growing apart from one’s spouse over a long period of time v. multiple infidelities/divorces over such a period v. extramarital sex with a juvenile) and b) how the matter was handled (in a manner respectful of one’s ex’s rights and feelings, as well as how the person handled related issues like children/family etc., v. the way Gingrich and Giuliani handled their indiscretions), also should get figured into the calculation. Which is probably what goes into your analysis anyway.

  • I agree with much of what’s been said already. I think that it is a mistake to assume that liberals are less turned off by infidelity than conservatives. It seems unsavory across the board of ideology. However, liberals tend to feel less pleasant about bringing up candidates personal lives. Doing so flies in the face of our belief that our personal relationships exist outside the domain of government, and that government has no claim to them. I think that may be a reason why conservative infidelity is so often under the radar.

  • Trying to figure out the conservative evangelical value voter is tricky because we think and act according to an entirely different set of rules. Rational rules of behavior don’t apply to these folks, yet many of us appy them because those are the rules we know. Faith and fast-held beliefs are what govern these people. To keep their brittle views of the world from shattering, they simply deny the contradictions their beliefs cause. Add in their us-vs-them dualistic outlook and their IQ (irrationalilty quotient) multiplies. They may just decide to blame Clinton or Hollywood or liberals or Janet Jackson and let McCain, Gingrich and the rest slide.

  • Hey guys – I found the 2003 990 filed by the Sunrise Foundation. Guess who sponsors the Sunrise Foundation? Rush Limbaugh! Maybe I’m a tad too suspicious but those grants to individuals “in need” look like payoffs to Rush’s dope dealers. Plus Rush donated a whopping $41k’s worth of ceramic heaters and a.c. units to the troops in Iraq.

    I posted the salacious details at TPM Cafe.

  • I’m not a religious conservative. In fact, I don’t even believe in God.

    However, I am married. I love my wife and, just as importantly, my wife loves me. I can think of very little in the world that would be scummier or more despicable than for me to cheat on my wife.

    It is a character issue. Cheating on your spouse indicates that either you can’t control your hormones, or you have a weak sense of honor and honesty or, more likely, both. Any way you slice it, being a philanderer ought to count against you at the polls.

    Note that I do not have a problem with divorce, nor do I think people who no longer love each other should remain shackled together. I just think you should have the decency to break off a relationship before you start messing around.

  • Some overlap to the sanctity of marriage is a logical extension to this adultery issue. The right is always yammering about the tradition and institution of marriage. Is infidelity worse than being gay and in love?

  • There are a zillion reasons that adultery happens. Many of the reasons are very human and understandable in the context of their relationships. There’s plenty to villainize Newt and the boys about without making assumptions about their relationships. Wanting people dead because of adultery is just being a fundamentalist Xtian or Islamist.

  • I think the Republicant Base’s (Al Qrista?) attitude about infidelity might show up in which sinners they will forgive. And which one’s they won’t. If McCain, Giuliani and Newt do enough foot-washing and butt-kissing they’ll get forgiven. Bill Clinton need not apply to these folks.

  • “Interesting that Leviticus has nothing to say about father-daughter incest, the kind that one woman in six has experienced (and the kind that at least three high officials in the Christian Coalition have been accused of by their daughters, one of whom was Susan Smith who put her sons in a car and sent it into a lake to drown them – her incestuous father was the head of the South Carolina Christian Coalition).” – Tom Cleaver

    Leviticus 18.6 ” ‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.”

    The next 12 verses cite border line cases, like your father’s second wife or a half-sister. Admittedly, it goes right past stating that father’s shouldn’t do daughters. Maybe they thought that was obviously covered in 18.6.

    Isaac Asimov wrote two great books about the bible (old and new testiment). He explains that the old testiment is a compliation of two priestly traditions, northern (Judea) and southern (Isreal). If you read Leviticus 18 and 20, they cover the same ground, but Leviticus 18 lays out what are considered ‘crimes’ while 20 lays out punishments. Which is why conservatives love to quote Leviticus 18.22 ” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” but not Leviticus 20.13 ” ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” because they would be roundly rejected as extremists.

    “I wonder if that is due to the Torah story of, who was it Lot maybe, sleeping with his daughters–some sort of attempt at internal consistency?” – bubba

    Lot’s daughters got him drunk and seduced him after the destruction of Sodom and Gommora because they thought the whole world had been destroyed and they were the last three people on the Earth. I think the story is definately an example of what NOT to do.

  • I think much of this issue is best left for Judgement Day (which I don’t believe in). How many fundamentalist preachers have only confessed their adultery after having been caught? How many “lusted after someone in his/her heart” but, since it never resulted in anything didn’t count against hm/her? I frankly think, apart from intentional hypocrisy, other people’s sex lives are none of my business. What should matter politically is the behavior of the individual in the public sphere. FDR’s or Eisenhower’s or JFK’s infidelity, as long as they were discrete (i.e., respectful of the opinion of others), should be of concern solely to themselves, their wives and their mistresses.

  • The thing about Christian voters that I think most liberals/progressives don’t get is, for the most part, they really believe in the religious values they profess. It might just be a political game for the likes of Falwell and Robertson, but they everyday people they represent take this stuff very seriously, and are not likely to comromise their values for the sake of political expediency. I know this because I used to be one of those people.

  • This has the potential to be a two-edged sword. I don’t know how comfortable I’d be contributing to a political climate in which a candidate (or office-holder)’s personal foibles and private failings took on an importance equal to their views on the issues and political record. I was disgusted that Clinton’s presidency was destroyed by something I didn’t think was important. I regret the fact that Gary Hart’s political career was shipwrecked by an indiscretion. I don’t think I want to encourage voters to think that way.

    Besides, there is no way to predict who this strategy might backfire against. For every candidate like Don “the Wilkes-Barre Strangler” Sherwood, R-PA-10, whose very public antics with his mistress are a matter of public record, there might be a Democrat liable to attack about his or her personal life. I’m not sure I want to start leveraging that tactic against Republican incumbents.

    The exception might be occasions when some of these people pose as ‘fambly values’ demagogues. We all rejoice when a hypocrite is exposed. But as a routine element in political campaigns? They have too much tendency to turn nasty as it is, if you ask me.

  • This is complete nonsense. The “Christian” right is not at all concerned about “values” in the philosophical or dictionary sense of the word “value”. You’re getting misled by their word-games. Their idea of proper “values” is nothing but extreme right-wing ideology. Accordingly, adultery or any other old-fashioned moral concern is naturally only a “concern” when a Democrat is involved because adultery is merely a tool for attacking someone who is not a follower of right-wing-nut (i.e., “values”) philosophy. A Republican who is a right-wing nut is absolved of any “value” problem because the relevant “value” is only right-wing extremist thinking, and with that “value” intact even crimes will be overlooked, as in Libby’s, Rove’s, or Oliver North’s cases. The only wrong “value” is to not be a right-wing nut. Your idea that this adultery stuff may be a problem for Republican candidates is therefore complete nonsense with respect to the “values” Republicans and is probably equally irrelevant to the moderates and independents for other reasons. This is not a matter of “hypocrisy” for the right-wingers — i.e., being concerned with Democrats’ values but not Republicans” values — rather, it is a matter of defining the term “value,” which are not any kind of traditional Christian value at all. Thinking about old-fashioned values is a one-way street.

  • Steve nails it. We really need to see past the language and posturing of the right about “values” to the use of moral befuddlement to gain power. I guess I blame our (that’s all of our) propensity to take people at their word. It’s a nice but dangerously naive habit. Particularly when you’re dealing with people for whom total power is the goal… at any cost. Balance of power and tolerance are anathema to them. The “values” argument is simply a weapon It’s their Bradley tank, their nuke.

  • I’m glad someone up above mentioned FDR, JFK, and Eisenhower (I’m not an expert, but I don’t think Ike’s infidelity was ever reliably confirmed.) It clearly is possible to be a good, even great, president and an adulterer. And don’t forget Nixon, who was never accused of cheating on Pat but was the (2nd?) most dishonorable president in the past century. (But dont’ forget he watched Deep Throat 6 times before he got it down pat!)

  • “I think that may be a reason why conservative infidelity is so often under the radar.
    Comment by Darren — 6/21/2006 @ 5:19 pm ”
    The reason conservative infidelity — and all other related issues (eg, Bush’s squeeze’s abortion in the 70’s, which everyone knows about but never shows on that radar screen; funny, that) — are rarely heard of is not because we won’t bring personal lives into the discussion.
    It is because the media work for their owners, the same corporatocracy that owns the Republicans.
    Until we get this, and create our own media — our own TV network, our own radio stations, our own newspapers — nothing will change. We MUST own our own media.

  • So, from a yellow dog Democrat old lady point of view, a Bush-hater-before-Bush-hating-was-cool Democrat, I say an adulterous episode condemns any politician, Repub, or Democrat.

    The difference is that a Democrat can redeem himself by working for the common good of this country. A Republican doesn’t have that option, seeing as how they don’t believe in any common good.

    • Comments are closed.