RSS Feed MenuJonathan Rauch wrote the classic article on how to report (not) on politicians’ marriages – and really everybody’s marriages – back in 2001.
Adultery is socially dangerous. But, while you don’t want to condone it, you can’t eradicate it. The answer is a Chinese box of rules. For public consumption–that is, what we tell the children–the rule is: Never, never, never! But the real rule is: If you absolutely must fool around, keep it out of sight. Within that rule is a still more subtle one: If you pretend not to do it, we’ll pretend not to notice. At some point, of course, word may seep out. Then what? Here yet another rule kicks in: If the cuckolded spouse either doesn’t know or pretends not to know, then no hanky-panky is going on–no sirree!
You have here a magnificent contraption. It reduces adultery by requiring that it be kept out of sight, which greatly inconveniences adulterers. Better still, it empowers cuckolded spouses–especially women–by letting them be the ones to decide just how much hanky-panky is too much. If a woman wants to tolerate her husband’s infidelity for the sake of marriage or children, she can do so without losing face. But when enough is enough, she can blow the whistle and the shocked and amazed community can aver that it has never seen such a scoundrel as her husband.
Rereading Rauch after any lapse of time always reminds me of James Thurber’s complaint that there was no point in him writing anything: he would always discover after the fact that Robert Benchley had written the same thing only better back in 1924.
SkepticalIdealist // Sep 5, 2010 at 3:56 am
Agreed. There is a great deal of hypocrisy. But if politicians don’t want to be judged by the standards of “traditional family values” they probably shouldn’t run on them. The problem is that too many Americans are susceptible to these fraudulent sales pitches, and that’s why politicians will keep making those pitches until they stop working. Identity politics is poison for democracy.
Personally, I could care less if a politician has an effin’ harem in his back office. What I care about is the following: Are they creating jobs? Are they balancing the budget? Are they making the country a better place? Are they standing up for civil liberties and fundamental human rights? In other words, are they doing their JOB? If you want a politician who is guaranteed never to commit adultery then go hire a eunuch.
moionfire // Sep 5, 2010 at 6:30 am
^ Agree entirely with the above comment…
oldgal // Sep 5, 2010 at 10:07 am
Also agree with above comment.
MSheridan // Sep 6, 2010 at 10:21 pm
I mostly agree with the first comment, with two caveats:
First, if the politician has campaigned and/or legislated as a social conservative, I’ve got no problem with people going after that pol for hypocrisy. That hypocrisy might or might not in and of itself lose my vote, as I don’t evaluate the sexual conduct of candidates for office when voting and don’t generally vote for social conservatives anyway. However, I could easily understand it automatically losing the votes of others who had been taken in by the false moral coin proffered by that politician. Their votes had been gained under false pretenses and they’d have a right to be upset. That alone makes such a scandal newsworthy.
Second, if a scandal involved other ethical breaches, such as nonconsensual sex, or official jobs/contracts granted in exchange for sex, then damn straight I care. Extramarital sex hurts a marriage. The others are crimes against society and thus my proper business.
Carney // Sep 7, 2010 at 4:43 pm
What a brilliant article. Potentially mind-changing for people on both sides of the culture war divide.