The Character Issue

Nick Beaudrot and Matt Yglesias want to know what I think about John McCain's less-than-heroic treatment of his first wife. Beaudrot writes:

If you think a candidate's behavior in his or her personal life bears relevance to his merits as a Presidential candidate, McCain's dalliances with other women and near gold-digging appear fundamentally disqualifying, roughly on par with anything Rudy Giuliani did to his spouses.

Well, as a card-carrying defender of the Freak Show, I see no reason why McCain's 1970s behavior shouldn't be an issue in the Presidential race; if McCain's beloved high school teacher is relevant to the campaign, then so is his treatment of Carol McCain (and their children). I don't, however, think the comparison to Giuliani quite holds up: Not only because Rudy's callousness was considerably more public than McCain's, but - more importantly - because McCain's first wife has remained friends with him, and supported him politically, which contrasts sharply with Rudy's estrangement from his ex-wife and children. And this difference probably explains why McCain's '70s caddishness hasn't become a big issue in the past, and won't become one in this election cycle: The American people, I expect, will take the view that if the wronged party seems to have forgiven McCain for jilting her, it would be churlish not to do the same.

As for my view of the matter - well, as I've mentioned before, I tend to agree with James Poulos that an America in which politicians had a more difficult time recovering from flagrant private misbehavior would be a better place to live and vote and marry in. It's not that I think an adulterer can't be an effective political leader; it's that I'd like to see the social costs of sexual misconduct go up, at least on the margins, and having certain avenues to prominence closed off to you if you decide to ditch your family and take up with a younger, richer, healthier woman seems like a reasonable cost to impose on would-be divorcees. All of that said, though, we're obviously a long, long way from that state of affairs, and things being what they are, I'm not going to argue that social conservatives should deliver the White House to Obama in order to make a futile protest against the decline of masculine honor among our politicians.

Photo by Flickr user ChristheDunn used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

So, essentially, you are saying you think he's not ethically up to the job, but expediency will always trump morality when you vote?

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 1:47 PM

Shorter Douthat: Since librulz are decadent, fornicatin' animals anyway, the upstanding among us cannot afford to unilaterally disarm!

Yeah, it's the conservative way, alright: Stiff upper lips all around when a family goes nuclear, let the victims put on a brave face, and we'll pretend that nothing soul-scorching happened and that no one's to blame. No one, I tell you! Look, over there, a fornicatin' librul!

Posted by elle loco | June 9, 2008 1:54 PM

This seems to be a complete cop-out. "Until all people stop littering, I will continue to do so, though I strongly oppose littering." His currently cordial relationship with his ex-wife is completely beside the point; can we simply agree that his behavior was toward her was boorish? There is no evidence that the McCain we see today is a changed-for-the-better man.

Posted by M. Carpet | June 9, 2008 1:56 PM

This seems to be a complete cop-out. "Until all people stop littering, I will continue to do so, though I strongly oppose littering." His currently cordial relationship with his ex-wife is completely beside the point; can we simply agree that his behavior was toward her was boorish? There is no evidence that the McCain we see today is a changed-for-the-better man.

Posted by M. Carpet | June 9, 2008 1:56 PM

As an extenuating factor, may we remember that John McCain spent those five years away from his wife suffering excruciating torture?

I'm a Democrat, I hate the Vietnam War and I very much disagree with the cause that John McCain fought for. But that doesn't take away from the fact that he is evidently a man of great courage and integrity who endured great suffering. In light of that, I'm inclined to write him a pass on this one. Marriages have often broken up in the aftermath of trauma like what McCain suffered, and I am charitable enough to not judge him too harshly. For that matter, so is his first wife.

Posted by Hector | June 9, 2008 2:00 PM

Not bad. Two follow-ups.

(1) "The American people, I expect, will take the view that if the wronged party seems to have forgiven McCain for jilting her, it would be churlish not to do the same.". Does this standard hold for Bill and Hillary Clinton?

(2) What about the ... well, let's not say exploitation ... use of Cindy Hensley McCain's wealth and personal connections in Arizona?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 9, 2008 2:01 PM

The idea that his first wife isn't slating him somehow makes it ok is a pretty dumb meme.

So Bill Clinton's dalliances are either wrong or ok, depending on whether HRC forgives him/is ok with it?

Either its wrong or its not.

At least Ross is an honest hypocrite in saying it's wrong, it's against my morals, but i'll vote for him because he's a Republican.

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 2:05 PM

James beat me to the punch,

So, essentially, you are saying you think he's not ethically up to the job, but expediency will always trump morality when you vote?

This is pretty weak sauce Ross. It's telling that someone who is looked to as an intellectual leader of the current right would freely admit that his ethical standards are subject to revision based on political expediency.

Thanks for making it clear that no one should take take your Very Serious Moralizing as anything other than political posturing.

Posted by Steve Balboni | June 9, 2008 2:07 PM

Is the American public really eager to have a HOMEWRECKING WHORE like Cindy McCain as First Lady?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 2:12 PM

Ross, nice weasel out.

You moralists are so full of shit it's mind boggling.

Posted by ashj | June 9, 2008 2:17 PM

Previous commenters have pretty well covered it. I'm shocked, shocked that Ross think's this is No Big Deal. (Personally, I agree, it makes McCain an asshole, but so what? But then, my whole political philosophy isn't based on castigating such moral failings...)

Posted by Pooh | June 9, 2008 2:22 PM

So then do you also forgive Cindy McCain's drug abuse and theft from her charity to support said drug habit?

And as I inquired before at Cogitamus, if Michelle Obama had committed the same sins, wouldn't you folks on the right be crucifying her from sun up to sun down?

Incidentally, I care not a wit about with whom politicians (or others) get horizontal and can't imagine why you think it's any of your business. But as long as Republicans want to play at being the party of virtue -- with rich comic results -- then their foibles are going to be fair game.

Posted by Sir Charles | June 9, 2008 2:22 PM

because McCain's first wife has remained friends with him, and supported him politically

What James and Bye-Bye said above. Also, I'm pretty sure that McCain's first wife and RudyG's first wife are different people. But nice try, Sparky. Better luck next time.

Posted by ed | June 9, 2008 2:22 PM

Steve,

thanks. It's even more telling that Ross would looked to as an intellectual leader of the current right.

Posted by James | June 9, 2008 2:22 PM

Sir Charles wonders: "And as I inquired before at Cogitamus, if Michelle Obama had committed the same sins, wouldn't you folks on the right be crucifying her from sun up to sun down?"

No question about it - she'd be called a drug-addled HOMEWRECKING WHORE by every wingnut radio and TV voice in the country. But none of them are saying that about Cindy McCain, even though it happens to be the truth.

Cindy's a SKANK!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 2:29 PM

If that article is right, then maybe there is another reason that Carol McCain isn't complaining, and that's that it appears she left her first husband for McCain. I'm not saying that any of John McCain's actions were correct, but I wonder if Carol McCain feels a bit guilty for leaving her first husband to be with a more glamorous guy. Perhaps she wasn't surprised by his behavior, since he probably chased her. Really, if you leave your husband for another man, why would you be surprised if that man leaves you? Was McCain callous and is this a blot on his character? Sure. Was Carol McCain a completely innocent victim? I'm not sure that's quite the case.

Posted by baconboy | June 9, 2008 2:31 PM

Personally I love charges of hypocrisy.

It means we have standards to begin with.

Perhaps the Obama's should get divorced or he should cheat on her.

Otherwise they also are hypocrites - they refuse to live down to their own lack of standards.

Posted by Fitz | June 9, 2008 2:33 PM

Shorter Ross:

It's OK if a middle-aged man cheats on his crippled wife with a much younger woman if he pays said crippled wife enough money out of his new heiress-wife's estate to placate her.

There are many reasons why we could accept what McCain did -- it was 25+ years ago and people change, McCain had just undergone a massively horrific experience and was probably trying to sort out his life, people can justifiably want to end a marriage if their spouse undergoes a drastic physical change that makes them unattractive.* But "his first wife forgave him [after being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars] isn't one of them.

* I remember a friend's girlfriend in college asked him "would you still love me if I gained like 200 pounds?" He answered, "Probably not." They stayed together for a while after that, but he ended up marrying someone else.

Posted by Joe | June 9, 2008 2:35 PM

Fitz writes: "Personally I love charges of hypocrisy.

It means we have standards to begin with.

Perhaps the Obama's should get divorced or he should cheat on her.

Otherwise they also are hypocrites - they refuse to live down to their own lack of standards."

This explains why Fitz meets his old Monsignor once or twice a month to get his, uh, "blessing of the throat." Dominus vobiscum!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 2:46 PM

Hey guys! McCain wears flags on his lapel, and Cindy McCain has been so proud of America all her life.

Posted by gregor | June 9, 2008 2:53 PM

Ross's apologia for philandering candidates who happen to be conservative has been abused so much in this thread that it would be... ahem... churlish to pile on.

So instead, I'm going to pick on the last sentence here: "I'm not going to argue that social conservatives should deliver the White House to Obama in order to make a futile protest against the decline of masculine honor among our politicians."

Masculine honor? What, are social conservatives yearning to return to an era of pistol duels? McCain treated his first wife dishonorably, as did Giuliani, Gingrich, and plenty of other stars in Ken Starr's political party. I don't think the unlamented decline of chivalry is the point here. What seems to have been lost is a sense of shame.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 9, 2008 2:55 PM

But wait:

McCain cheats on Cindy too. Everybody in DC knows this. But the press will give him a pass. Vicki the Lobbyist?

Posted by jay | June 9, 2008 2:55 PM

The party of piety and family values on display once again. McCain traded in his broken, used wife for a hot new one curves, money, and a drug habit, but remember the Democrats are always worse. Besides you don't him and Cindy them engaging terrorist fist bumps either.

Posted by Richard Bottoms | June 9, 2008 2:56 PM

Yeah, some defender of traditional values this Douthat character is.

He can't bring himself to actually condemn McCain's actions; instead we get a series of weasel-words and phrases like "I see no reason why McCain's behavior shouldn't be an issue" and "I'd like to see the social costs of sexual misconduct go up."

I'd like to see the social costs of being a douche bag go up. How's that for a rejoinder?

Posted by Jeff | June 9, 2008 3:00 PM

Ross, if you are reading this, I would humbly advise you to shut down comments for this post. Certain commenters have turned this into a disgusting thread not worthy of your site or the Atlantics'.

I would, however, like to see your response to Nicholas Beaudrout's two questions.

Posted by shutitdown | June 9, 2008 3:01 PM

Ross' argument in seven letters IOKIYAR. That's 50 points for the bingo, and may you'll get lucky and put the K on a double or triple letter score. Good Scrabble, not so good logic.

Posted by Doug | June 9, 2008 3:10 PM

I actually think that Ross's position is perfectly defensible.

However, it does excuse too much.

Ie, "While I personally don't like to attack candidates' spouses, we're obviously a long, long way from that state of affairs. However, things being what they are-- ie, the National Review running a cover hit piece on Michelle Obama-- I have to hope that The American Prospect drives home Cindy McCain's stealing from her charity to fuel her drug habit, and her use of connections and wealth to get very lenient treatment from the authorities."

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 9, 2008 3:15 PM

So Ross, doesn't your position collapse into: adultery isn't an issue, period? I mean, you're saying it matters with a Republican ... except you don't want it to be an issue because that would prevent the Republican from getting elected. And it also would matter with a Democrat ... but that doesn't matter because you don't want Democrats to get elected anyway. In other words, you don't consider it to be a factor for any politician. You could say the same thing more concisely if you just said: "It doesn't matter."

Also, I think the fact that McCain's ex-wife still supports him as a candidate speaks more to her character than to his.

Posted by jaltcoh.blogspot.com | June 9, 2008 3:23 PM

"The American people, I expect, will take the view that if the wronged party seems to have forgiven McCain for jilting her, it would be churlish not to do the same."

That's good spin from the Republican side.

How's this for counter-spin:

McCain shut up wife #1 with gobs of hush money from super-rich addicted drug pilferer beer heiress mistress then wife #2's fortune.

How would the American people digest that storyline? Would they be "churlish"? How about disgusted?

Posted by tomtom | June 9, 2008 3:29 PM

The cost for sexual misconduct on the margins is high. Having lost a brother to AIDS, I have some idea of just how high the price can be. As the daughter of a teenage mom, I have some idea of just how high the price can be.

Democrats? Well, just ask the Clintons about what it feels like to live on the margins -- they know what the double standard you preach is all about. They know where the margins fall.

Republicans; those toe-tapping, instant messaging, wife-cheating, wife-choking good-timing rich boys in Congress? Ha, too funny. Far as I can tell, there's two sets of standards; just call Harold Ford and ask him.

Given Republican's flagrant display of "masculine honor," I've just got one thing to say: "Welcome to the real world, boys. Be safe, use a condom, because being chaste now won't save your political hide."

Posted by zic | June 9, 2008 3:32 PM

Note to self:

Judging horrible personal conduct committed by conservatives is "churlish".

Judging horrible personal conduct committed by liberals is the necessary application of social cost.

Hard to keep these rules straight. Conservatism is so complicated. Who'd have thought it has so many loopholes?

Posted by tomtom | June 9, 2008 3:36 PM

As a frequent Douthat-critic, I still have to say that I see where he's coming from here. All else being equal, he'd rather see McCain lose because of this. But all else isn't equal: Obama will, in Ross's eyes, have worse policies than McCain from a social conservative perspective - so much so that McCain is a preferable candidate despite his history of philandering and publicly calling wives "cunts" and so forth.

Ross is essentially implying that he's done a moral cost/benefit analysis on McCain and Obama.

None of that is meant to say that I agree with Ross, who is, I still think, terribly comfortable with the idea of imposing his moral convictions on others.

Posted by donald | June 9, 2008 3:40 PM

things being what they are, I'm not going to argue that social conservatives should deliver the White House to Obama in order to make a futile protest against the decline of masculine honor among our politicians.

You said you would like the social cost of his behavior to be increased. How can that be accomplished when you rule out the only avenue that ordinary people have to make that change happen? If people are encouraged to respond to McCain's behavior by voting for him to be the President of the United States, doesn't that mean you don't think the cost is really that important, or at least much less important than partisan matters?

That's fine and perfectly defensible, but it marks the end of family values as a valid political issue. Except when it applies to gays, of course.

Posted by Brittain33 | June 9, 2008 3:46 PM

Donald, I too see where Ross is coming from here and sympathize with his argument and position. I also see that it is functionally a "live and let live" approach, restricting one's moral judgment of an elected official to privately tut-tutting him while endorsing his leadership with your votes. This is the victory of the Democratic/mainstream point of view during the Clinton impeachment, back when Republicans were saying "what will we tell the children?"

If Republicans vote for McCain with the full knowledge of his past indiscretions, then, what will they tell the children? That the social cost of such discretions should be increased--just not yet, and not when it might count?

I'm reminded of Kathryn Jean Lopez's praise of Bill Bennett even after it was revealed he was a compulsive gambler. It's ok for him to talk against the other sins, as long as he's doing good over all. This is not what I consider a conservative approach, but conservatism may end up with a new definition.

Posted by Brittain33 | June 9, 2008 3:50 PM

I can almost hear inside the Republicans:

Please don't go after Cindy the way we went after Hillary.

And the Democrats probably won't.

Posted by tomtom | June 9, 2008 3:51 PM

What most commentary is missing is that it is sin & forgiveness.

This is central to our way of life. When (in the midst of the Jennifer Flowers episode) Clinton went on TV with his wife and talked about his troubled marriage it was taken for what is was meant to denote.

That even though he had not been perfect in the past (as none of us our) he was resolved to the importance of fidelity and would not repeat such dalliances in the future.

America (& I) took him at his word as is the duty of Christian Charity.

Authentic hypocrisy is not merely sinning, it is saying "the rules that apply to the rest don’t apply to me"

The left escapes this perennial truth by simply holding no standards to begin with.

The application of rules being difficult cannot (and never has) made the rules inapplicable.

Those who uphold the rules, fail and endure have infinitely more integrity than those who don’t uphold the rules to begin with.

Posted by Fitz | June 9, 2008 3:52 PM

jay writes: "McCain cheats on Cindy too. Everybody in DC knows this. But the press will give him a pass."

Of course they will. And so will amoral monsters like Fitz who support torture while pretending they have "standards." They do indeed have "standards," but they only apply them to their political enemies.

That said, who could really blame McCain forcheating on his now-long-in-the-tooth HOMEWRECKING WHORE? Does she really have anything to complain about if he's found a younger piece or two on the side? As a former younger piece herself, that is.

Ah, it's great to be a member of the Family Values Party!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 4:10 PM

Fitz,

How do I respond -- oh yes - bullshit!

You people on the right time and time again fail to live up to your so-called rules. And there is precisely no penalty paid because the rules are not really that important to you -- they are a cudgel, a useful political tool, with which to beat on those of us you deem as living by no rules.

Genuine adults, on the other hand, are inclined to take a more modest, "I don't know all the circumstances, I too might sin" approach and leave these issues aside in making our voting choices. Because in the end, I will take an adulterous FDR over an abstemious George Bush 1001 times out of a 1000.

In the meantime, we will continue to have fun with the foibles of those who in fact have no integrity -- just the balls to claim that they do.

Posted by Sir Charles | June 9, 2008 4:13 PM

"Genuine adults, on the other hand, are inclined to take a more modest approach, "I don't know all the circumstances, I too might sin"

This is exactly the approach I am talking about- be it McCain or Clinton.

Sir Charles
"and leave these issues aside in making our voting choices. Because in the end, I will take an adulterous FDR over an abstemious George Bush 1001 times out of a 1000."

That is your prerogative, it is your vote after all. I cannot leave them aside, but rather weight them amidst all the others. For a social conservative a Clinton like fiasco gives us no pleasure nor does it in any way advance our cause. Indeed it diminishes public morality.

Likewise should McCain be caught having cheated or cheating.

Posted by Fitz | June 9, 2008 4:28 PM

Make sure that all McCain supporters never google:
“The wife US Republican John McCain callously left behind”

Their “hero” might not stay their “hero.”

Posted by Kirk Muse | June 9, 2008 4:46 PM

Here is what galls:

If the Democrats ran a candidate with McCain's past an army of self-righteous scolds would make it the central issue of the campaign, because CHARACTER COUNTS.

Yet the Republicans will run McCain, knowing that the Democrats are simply less gutter-minded.

The best corrective is to go after McCain with unholy Republicanesque zeal to show that the politics of persomal destruction cuts both ways.

Democrats just don't have the stomach for it, to their credit and their detriment.

I remember well when my fundamentalist sister told me that she had to go with GWB because Kerry had less character. The Republicans actually win elections on that crap.

WTF

Posted by tomtom | June 9, 2008 4:46 PM

Fitz tells a funny: "For a social conservative a Clinton like fiasco gives us no pleasure nor does it in any way advance our cause."

The loud and constant cackling from social conservatives about the Adventures of Bill Clinton's Penis was the basic soundtrack for American politics in the 1990s. Fitz must have spent that period in prison or in a monastery if he thinks otherwise.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 4:47 PM

Here is what galls:

If the Democrats ran a candidate with McCain's past an army of self-righteous scolds would make it the central issue of the campaign, because CHARACTER COUNTS.

Yet the Republicans will run McCain, knowing that the Democrats are simply less gutter-minded.

The best corrective is to go after McCain with unholy Republicanesque zeal to show that the politics of persomal destruction cuts both ways.

Democrats just don't have the stomach for it, to their credit and their detriment.

I remember well when my fundamentalist sister told me that she had to go with GWB because Kerry had less character. The Republicans actually win elections on that crap.

WTF

Posted by tomtom | June 9, 2008 4:49 PM

So wait a minute, if the other marriage party makes peace with it then everything's cool? Didn't Hillary Clinton forgive her husband for his dalliances? Do you think it was perfectly fine too?

Posted by Elrod | June 9, 2008 4:51 PM

"For a social conservative a Clinton like fiasco gives us no pleasure nor does it in any way advance our cause."

That is at best self-delusion, more likely a lie.

Hypocritical posturing on people's sex lives lies at the core of the Republican political strategy. It is the key to the fundamentalist vote, and allowed the Republicans to succeeed for many years with their divisive 51% politics.

I know. I know many fundamentalists. I have attended many services. Half of my family is fundamentalist. They get a LOT of votes using these tactics.

Posted by tomtom | June 9, 2008 4:56 PM

tomtom writes: "If the Democrats ran a candidate with McCain's past an army of self-righteous scolds would make it the central issue of the campaign, because CHARACTER COUNTS.

Yet the Republicans will run McCain, knowing that the Democrats are simply less gutter-minded.

The best corrective is to go after McCain with unholy Republicanesque zeal to show that the politics of persomal destruction cuts both ways.

Democrats just don't have the stomach for it, to their credit and their detriment."

There's a line in the old John Wayne movie "The Quiet Man" where some Irish Catholic villagers are urged to "cheer like Protestants!"

I'm willing to "smear like a Repiglican" for a few months. Sure, it's sleazy and disgusting, but I'm willing to be Christ-like and suffer for the greater good. It would be great if more Dems and progressive types would join my little crusade and SMEAR LIKE REPIGLICANS! Come on, it's just a commitment of a few minutes a day behaving like excremental piles like Malkin and Hannity and Savage and Limbaugh behave 24/7.

So say it loud and say it often. Cindy McCain is a HOMEWRECKING WHORE and John McCain is a CHEATING BASTARD!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 4:57 PM

How about super-rich drug-pilfering addict homewrecking adulteress?

I am forgetting that Barck & Michelle Obama are out of touch elitists because they went to ivy-league colleges. Isn't that way worse?

I'm forgetting my priorities. Sorry.

Posted by tomtom | June 9, 2008 5:03 PM

I'd like to see the social costs of sexual misconduct go up, at least on the margins, and having certain avenues to prominence closed off to you if you decide to ditch your family and take up with a younger, richer, healthier woman seems like a reasonable cost to impose on would-be divorcees.

I'm never going to understand how this attitude can be called conservative in any self-respecting sense, or indeed even American -- the notion that one group's moral rules (religious-based, to boot) should be imposed on everyone's conduct.

It's a lot closer to Hector's version of totalitarian morality than to the idea of America as a place where you are allowed to pursue your own ideal of the good life, even if others don't share that vision. At least Hector isn't hypocritical about it.

Posted by guyx | June 9, 2008 5:20 PM

Everyone has pretty much laid bare your double-standard here.

But I'll take another approach at it, agreeing with what others are saying.

You say "I'm not going to argue that social conservatives should deliver the White House to Obama in order to make a futile protest against the decline of masculine honor among our politicians."

But then, you CAN'T be a "card carrying member of the freak show". Those two positions are mutually contradictory. You have to see that. The whole point of the freak show in the 90's, was to argue that Bill Clinton was not fit for office because of his "character issues", or philandering.

But when the "character issue" points to your candidate...well, IOKIYAR.

Posted by JC | June 9, 2008 6:26 PM

America as a place where you are allowed to pursue your own ideal of the good life, even if others don't share that vision.

Neither you, Sen. McCain, Gary Condit, or anyone else is entitled to the esteem of others, whether it be manifested in the casting of ballots on election day or in the mundane willingness of your neighbors to invite you over to a barbecue.

Posted by Art Deco | June 9, 2008 6:27 PM

Guyx,

Everyone wants to impose _some_ code of morality. I would assume that you want to impose some moral principles of your own- that labor should be paid its fair worth, or that we should protect wilderness areas, and so forth. Have at it- I agree with those principles too. But they are moral principles as much as Douthat's moral prinicples about sexuality. One important difference is that, perhaps, our duty to pay a fair wage and to protect the environment is evident to the consciences of people from a wide variety of traditions, whereas the immorality of divorce _under any circumstances_ is pretty narrowly a Catholic one. That's a difference in degree, though, not in kind, and _adultery_ is exactly one of those self-evidently wrong things as, say, economic exploitation. (I'm actually a bit confused by Ross- is he criticizing McCain based on the divorce or the alleged adultery?)

Even a concent-based sexual ethic has its own axioms, viz. that consent or its absence should make a sex act right or wrong. You can't prove that any more than you can prove adultery is wrong.

Posted by Hector | June 9, 2008 6:37 PM

@ Art Deco:

Neither you, Sen. McCain, Gary Condit, or anyone else is entitled to the esteem of others

I'm not claiming that I or they are entitled to esteem. Withhold esteem all you want! What I oppose is the idea that that withholding should be expressed as a coercive imposition enforced by society and/or the state.

You can recognize someone's right to conduct their life according to their own lights, free of this kind of imposing, while at the same time privately deploring their conduct.

Hector, hoping to have a reply to you soon, but will need some time.

Posted by guyx | June 9, 2008 6:51 PM

Hector:

Everyone wants to impose _some_ code of morality. I would assume that you want to impose some moral principles of your own- that labor should be paid its fair worth, or that we should protect wilderness areas, and so forth. Have at it- I agree with those principles too. But they are moral principles as much as Douthat's moral prinicples about sexuality.

My view is that such legislation or regulation is validly imposed only if it serves the objective public good in a way that does not essentially appeal to optional, private morality (even if it is also desirable on those grounds). I think your "difference of degree, not kind" is in fact a difference of kind.

I understand not seeing it that way, though.

Posted by guyx | June 9, 2008 6:57 PM

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable... unless you're a Kossack Democrat, because that's the only language you know.

I'm ready for for my transparently strategic charge of bigotry now, Mr. Carville.

Posted by David | June 9, 2008 7:34 PM

David writes: "By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable... unless you're a Kossack Democrat, because that's the only language you know."

David is a torture-loving neo-con who supports the war in Iraq, so take his opinions about what constitutes "obscenity" with a grain of salt. And some of his best pals are gay-bashing cavemen - just check out the blog run by Mark Shea that he recommends in another thread.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 7:54 PM

"My view is that such legislation or regulation is validly imposed only if it serves the objective public good in a way that does not essentially appeal to optional, private morality"

Well, that’s what so many of are arguments are about.

( Although you qualifier about "essentially appeal to optional, private morality" is either unnecessary or a way to force your opponents to be uniquely disfavored)

All this can apply to everything from pornography to prostitution, incest to gay marriage. Legalized suicide or drug use. Bans on transfat to hoarse meat. From polygamy, abortion, and on & on.

All these can be argued to serve the “objective public good” and all these are argued to serve to legitimate state purpose.

Posted by Fitz | June 9, 2008 8:28 PM

DISAGREE 100%
His ex wife is dependent on him to pay for her medical expenses. Her not supporting him could possible bring that to a halt.
HIS actions in the past SHOULD be made as public as Obama's past relationship with his preacher.
Will it be? No LOL The media are made up, for the most part, of Republicans just like CNN & FOX news.
Like today.....WHERE IS THE STORY ON THE 35 ARTICLES TODAY FROM THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE CALLING FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF GEORGE BUSH???????
The AP has a bot out on it but the main news feeds on the net? ....not a thing.
Soooo go ahead and make excuses for the senile peanut and I'll see you come November when Obama is sworn into office and the gravey train the GOP has ridden into the ground finally comes to a stop.

Posted by Deanna | June 9, 2008 10:24 PM

DISAGREE 100%
His ex wife is dependent on him to pay for her medical expenses. Her not supporting him could possible bring that to a halt.
HIS actions in the past SHOULD be made as public as Obama's past relationship with his preacher.
Will it be? No LOL The media are made up, for the most part, of Republicans just like CNN & FOX news.
Like today.....WHERE IS THE STORY ON THE 35 ARTICLES TODAY FROM THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE CALLING FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF GEORGE BUSH???????
The AP has a bot out on it but the main news feeds on the net? ....not a thing.
Soooo go ahead and make excuses for the senile peanut and I'll see you come November when Obama is sworn into office and the gravey train the GOP has ridden into the ground finally comes to a stop.

Posted by Deanna | June 9, 2008 10:25 PM

Fitz:

( Although your qualifier about "essentially appeal to optional, private morality" is either unnecessary or a way to force your opponents to be uniquely disfavored)

The qualifier is absolutely central to my point. "Good" in "serves the public good" means "conducive to society's proper functioning," much in the way that changing the oil is "good" for your car's engine. The conception of the "proper functioning" of society is where the real normative work is done here, and my view is that that "proper functioning" should not be a matter of society imposing (via state coercion) any particular moral code, where such moral code is based in particular beliefs that it's not reasonable to expect everyone in the society to share (such as religious belief).

In other words, a space should be created in which each member of the society can seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the state should not be in the business of telling you exactly how to go about that -- which is why I object to Ross's remarks about what he'd like to see society impose on people who offend his particular morality, even if I myself would agree in privately deploring such behavior. That ideal (i.e., life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) itself may amount to, in a sense, a "moral code" based in a particular view of human nature, but I see it as an attempt to make that code as universal, attenuated, and minimal as possible, in order to leave maximum room for differing, pluralistic visions of the good (in the moral sense).

That's compressed, but I don't want to go on too long, and anyway I doubt it's news to anyone, and also it's getting away from the actual subject of the thread.

Posted by guyx | June 9, 2008 11:00 PM

Ross,
I’m actually glad to see you remark that Carol McCain’s forgiveness matters to your interpretation of the meaning of McCain’s infidelity.

While cheating can cause terrible pain, its meaning varies, because relationships themselves vary enormously in their emotional dynamics, in the ways the individuals involved have cultivated the partnership, whether with care, neglect, or mistreatment. The meaning of the new relationship also matters to an evaluation of these situations. For outsiders to judge the act of cheating, we would need to know more than we generally do about the intimate lives of the people involved, and more than we generally have any business knowing.

Like they say, no one can break up a happy marriage. Because real intimacy requires deep connection and honest, personal communication between the partners, a media-imposed “freak show” standard may do more harm than good by misleading those eager for facile answers to the challenges of love. This caution seems important even though we understandably prefer leaders to have stable, caring relationships.

Posted by jason | June 9, 2008 11:06 PM

By the way, where did the photo accompanying this thread come from and why is the HOMEWRECKING WHORE carrying her dildo around in public?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 10, 2008 1:05 AM

"Cindy McCain is a HOMEWRECKING WHORE"

TR: So he married a wealthy heiress and she's the whore?

Posted by Thomas R | June 10, 2008 3:45 AM

I'm baffled by the idea that Carol McCain's forgiveness makes everything OK. Other things being equal, I'd say that an ex who turns bitter and vengeful after being dumped has shown there was probably a good reason to dump him/her. Likewise, an ex who is able to forgive has somewhat shown that she/he is a person with whom it should have been possible to work things out.

I'd also say it's not just the sex, it's the lying. In 2000 I switched parties to support McCain in the Republican primaries (a move I now regard as a huge mistake). In 2000, "character" in the sense of not committing adultery was very much center stage, and the Republicans were roundly condemning Al Gore because he didn't resign as vice president when he discovered Clinton's adultery- despite the fact that (as far as anyone knows) Gore himself has always been an exemplary family man.

At the time, McCain's campaign biography said that he and Carol had long been separated when he started seeing Cindy. We now know that was not true. Despite his own history, McCain willingly participated in damning Gore for insufficient opposition to Bill Clinton's adultery. Now that we know what we know, that's pretty disgusting.

My ex (a transplanted Southerner and religious right guy) was a big McCain supporter in 2000- he maxed out on contributions and was a major organizer for the California McCain campaign. He wouldn't have done that in a million years if he'd known the true story.

I do think there is a serious double standard here.

Posted by Anne E | June 10, 2008 3:45 AM

GuyX,

Fair enough. But no one is condemning McCain for the divorce, as far as I can see (at least I'm not), they're criticizing him for the adultery. Adultery is pretty universally condemned even though divorce is not.

You see, your conception of the good is not universally shared either. Some people aren't moved by mountains, waterfalls, forests and endangered wildlife. They would like to replace these things with golf courses and strip malls. Now since I believe in some kind of natural ideal for human life, I think that these people have a deficient aesthetic sense, I think that wilderness really has a value, and that a natural forest is really better, in some sense than a golf course. But if you are committed to the idea that everyone's opinion is of equal value then it's hard to see why the law should compel believers in golf courses to protect wilderness, any more than the law should push believers in polyamory to abide by monogamous marriage.

Posted by Hector | June 10, 2008 10:15 AM

Thomas R quotes and asks: ""Cindy McCain is a HOMEWRECKING WHORE"

TR: So he married a wealthy heiress and she's the whore? "

Yes. He's the CHEATING GOLDDIGGING BASTARD. Happy now?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 10, 2008 10:27 AM

From what the good book says, we would conclude that she is a homewrecker and he is an adulterer. If they were democrats we would say she doesn't pass the First Lady threshhold and he doesn't pass the Commander-in-Chief threshhold. The author can advance all sorts of excuses and rationalization, however, they won't wash.

Posted by Joe | June 10, 2008 10:34 AM

Hector,

You see, your conception of the good is not universally shared either.

No private conception of the moral good is universally shared -- I take that to be axiomatic.

My point is that it is therefore important for society to be organized to as to allow all its members maximum room for their own private conceptions of the moral good, rather than imposing one such conception on them.

Yes, there still then remains the problem of which goods to legislate, and how to decide between competing conceptions of that. But that is where I want to draw as sharp a line as possible (even if in practice it's not totally sharp) between "goods" in the sense of conducive to the functioning of the society as conceived and "goods" in the sense of particular moral principles. It's thorny and messy and it would take me way too long in a blog comment to fully spell out how I'd like to make that distinction. But even if it can only be approached asymptotically rather than perfectly realized, I believe it should function as a guiding ideal.

That ideal is itself a moral good, yes (this is where I see morality and politics overlapping), but it's a maximally abstract one, even "meta" in the sense that it is designed to allow individuals the freedom to pursue their own first-order conceptions of the moral good. And it's universal, not "metaphysically," but in the sense that (in my view) it's accepted as a ground rule by all who choose to participate in a society organized along such lines.

Anyway, got to run, thanks.

Posted by guyx | June 10, 2008 5:07 PM

Guyx,

I'm not sure I really get your distinction.

But anyway, leave the divorce out of it for a minute. And leave McCain out of it too- his particular case is a complex one, and I think we should look charitably on any failings of his personal life, in light of what he endured. Wouldn't you agree that adultery _in general_, perhaps barring some exceptional circumstances, is bad for society. People tend to be happiest and the distinctive human goods tend to flourish best in monogamous relationships, or at least monogamy with one person at one time. If you believe that love, commitment, childbearing and other goods that flow out of the relationship of man and woman are good things, then something that undermines the integrity of that bond is a bad thing, which adultery certainly does.

Posted by Hector | June 10, 2008 9:50 PM

Hector,

On the distinction I was trying to make, see also my comments to Fitz of 11 PM June 9.

I could agree with all you say about adultery personally and still object to Ross's attitude that society ought to impose penalties on adulterers. (He doesn't say who would be doing the imposing, but such an attitude is at least typical of those who would like to see the state do it, and apart from the state I'm not sure how you could guarantee the penalties would be imposed.)

In other words, my objection to adultery could be part of my private conception of the moral good, without my wishing to have it legislated by society so as to be imposed even on those who don't share my private conception.

You seem to be suggesting that adultery is an example of something that damages society enough that society has a legitimate interest in imposing such penalties, because adultery sufficiently harms the proper functioning of society. I think I disagree with that, but I can see that it is a possible argument to have. My insistence would be that the damage would have to be proven without reference to any moral code that it would not be reasonable to demand that everyone in the society share. A moral code based in the Catholic faith would be an example, because it's not reasonable to demand that everyone in the society be a Catholic. Or, if you want everyone to accept those moral tenets, you'd have to make a case for them that does not depend essentially on accepting the Catholic faith or any other religion.

(I'm speaking here, of course, of US society, as I understand it to have been intended. There are, of course, other societies designed differently.)

Also, not just McCain's case, but many, many cases, are complex and involve mitigating factors. I am not a Christian, but I regard the injunction "Judge not, lest ye be judged" to be a wise one. That too is a reason why, though like everyone else I make such judgements, I don't wish to see them enshrined as legislation, or any other form of social penalty sure to be imposed by some mechanism. I'm not interested in condemning McCain at all (even if I don't approve of what he did); like many other commenters here, what I was objecting to is cultural conservatives who decry such behavior as rendering someone unfit for office only as long as it's politically expedient for them to do so, and who suddenly find reasons to take a more nuanced view when it's someone they politically favor.

Posted by guyx | June 10, 2008 11:43 PM

Bill Clinton's fooling around while President hurt the country - it created a huge distraction. These tendancies in personal life have a big impact when you are the President of this country (as opposed to France...) That's the real problem though I am bothered not so much that he dumped his wife as I am by the condition she was in when he dumped her. He's a weakling.

Posted by ella | June 12, 2008 10:34 PM

McCain sure is quick to make smug remarks about Obama's wanting to "give up" - and get our kids and trillions(wtf?!!!) of our hard-earned taxes out of that money-laundering wormhole', but he demonstrates that HE'LL abandon adversity in a heartbeat, when its personal. yep, we can appropriate those trillions much more effectively and righteously right HERE, NOW, and also provide PROPER care for our damaged and traumatized veterans and their families.

Posted by watchful fair-ey | June 18, 2008 6:09 PM