While Governor Sanford was making pains to clarify that he was “accountable to God” (though not, it would seem, to the two women in his life), Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi denied allegations that he had used call girls, proclaiming he would “naturally” never hire prostitutes because the act lacks “the pleasure of conquest.” This is the man whose villa, often called a “harem,” frequently houses young, naked women at parties attended by prominent politicians; this is the man who hosted a soiree for a teen actress and now bears accusations that he participated in a sexual relationship with her; this is the man who stated that he wanted to wed a former showgirl but was, unfortunately, already married (In time, he simply appointed the performer to be his minister for “Equal Opportunities”); this is the man who can credit to his name a condemning trove of YouTube videos in which, for example, he dry humps a female traffic cop and slaps her on the ass before entering his car. Revealing how much thought Europeans extend to the personal exploits of their politicians, Sky Italia has shown Berlusconi to be advancing in the polls despite the character of his office breaks.
Writing for The Daily Beast, Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain and self-declared “pro-sex Republican,” defended Governor Sanford’s decision not to resign. Attributing her inclinations to “the fact that I am younger” and “more open-minded,” Ms. McCain affirmed that an affair like Sanford’s “is a private matter between a husband and a wife.” “Life happens,” she said; “people – especially politicians – make mistakes.”
Nevertheless, as ideal as it would be for politicians to have the privacy of their bedrooms (or hotel rooms) respected, this is presently an unrealistic expectation—and it is therefore a harmful one. Under the Panopticon of today’s mass media, politicians cannot possibly hide their personal lives from the public eye.
Yet do we really elevate them as archetypes of morality? During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama likely exaggerated his history of drug use simply because we prefer our politicians to be more or less like us: imperfect beings trying to lead good lives while enjoying a few vices along the way. It is when politicians deny their misdeeds that our often varying views on morality find common ground; the American desire to elect politicians with integrity directly relates, for example, to the media’s obsession with Bill Clinton’s definition of “is” and Mark Sanford’s mind-numbing “as-we-work-our-way-through-this.” One must admit that the celebrity appeal of Reagan and Obama owes not insignificantly to their love for their wives.
When the people elect representatives to exercise judgment on behalf of their needs, these statesmen must not forget the indebted nature of their jobs. Is it really so ludicrous to question a public official’s dedication to service and honesty when he fails to demonstrate these virtues on behalf of the needs of his family, his closest constituents? Although it is arguable that man is not naturally monogamous and is, with Darwinian justification, bolder in his sexual undertakings than his female counterpart, man – neither god nor beast – should attempt to distinguish himself as a creature of empathy and moral integrity in handling his social commitments (Say nothing of sexual repression).
If Europeans view Americans as erotically Victorian for holding their politicians to this standard, then so be it. Although we may not have a machismo, Il-Duce-want-to-be as our leader, we also do not have our elected officials cavalierly promoting sexist and chauvinistic values. Such moral nonchalance can, moreover, contribute to a mindset of invulnerability, as Silvio Berlusconi now seeks to be judicially immune from corruption charges.
While Americans may place tougher moral standards on the private lives of politicians than other countries do, it is foolish to believe that an affair one day entails a political funeral the next. The affairs of Democrats do not, of course, engender quite as much political fallout and backlash as those of the moralizing Republicans; but the Democrats do not hold a monopoly on forgiveness. Even ultra-conservative Republicans have persevered in the midst of brazen hypocrisy and deceit. In June of 1997, after his name appeared on the D.C. Madam’s publicized phone list, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) immediately apologized for “a very serious sin in my past”; he continues to represent his state today. Newt Gingrich pointed a finger at Clinton, and three pointed back at him; but he now positions himself as a frontrunner in the 2012 presidential election. In facing their constituents’ judgment in a prompt, sincere, contrite, and unequivocally responsible way, these men restored the public’s confidence in their integrity and the authenticity of their commitments.
