The sleaze factor (The John Edwards trial)

[vison]

I could have almost respected Pres. Clinton if he had said, "Yeah, I screwed around." Men like him usually do screw around. Power is a powerful attractant, women "go" for men like that. Combined with his looks (he is sorta handsome), evident charm, and position, it is not surprising that women laid down on the road in front of him every day. The tragedy is that it kept him from being, in my eyes at least, a Great Man. He was reduced to the level of a horny kid who couldn't keep his pants zipped and who used the most powerful office in the world as his private bordello.

He has been known as a womanizer all his life, and it was known all during his presidential campaigns. I am not making "light" of his adultery or anyone's, don't get me wrong. If it suited his wife to ignore/pretend, I was okay with that. What I'm NOT okay with is Mr. Clinton parading to church week after week clutching his wee bible and lying through his shiny white teeth. His sexual behaviors and the public discussions taking up months/years of airtime and energy that should have been devoted to important things.

Think how different it could have been! A little discretion, a little self-control OR a little manly honesty could have saved him.

It's not Party to me. I don't care which party these clowns belong to: because there, at least, they are all the same.

Edwards bothers me more because he is, as River and others have pointed out, such an obvious lightweight. There is nothing to weigh him down, he is a caricature of a man on the make and his arrogance brought him down before he could do much real harm.

People want to know too much about politicians nowadays. There is no privacy, and that probably keeps some people out of the running because either they do care that their private affairs become public, or they just don't want to expose their famlies to that level of scrutiny. We are luckier up here in that the PM's family is not a public matter, and anyway, who'd have an affair with Mr. Harper?

[Primula Baggins]

I've wondered before and will wonder again why so many men with power—specifically political power, which is vulnerable to scandal in a way other forms are not—apparently just can't simply control themselves. Shouldn't they consider it part of the job? These days, for most, it isn't even a long-term job. Once they've done enough powerful men enough favors, they can cash in to power of their own in forms that let them do whatever they want for the rest of their lives.

Of course, that happens even if what forced them out of political power was scandal, so maybe they consider the gratification worth the risk. Watch Edwards. He'll never be poor.

[JewelSong]

I think Clinton was a horn-dog.

I think Edwards is a slime-dog.

Clinton had a little intern on the side. (And I agree, had he come clean about it - as in: "Yes, I fooled around and I regret it, please allow Hillary and me some privacy to work things out" - it would have been a non-issue)

But many powerful men are known to have sexual dalliances and it has never impeded their official duties. In fact, the Chinese and other Eastern cultures would say that this made them stronger leaders. Strong and powerful men have strong and powerful urges and these urges should be satisfied (or so the thinking goes in many Eastern cultures.)

Edwards was different (for me) and sleazier/slimier/stupider.

1. He wasn't IN office yet. He hadn't proved himself to be a strong, powerful man by any means.
2. His wife had CANCER for God's sake.
3. He had two young children.
4. He didn't simply have a dalliance. He had a full-blown affair with a bimbo-esque woman, while ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. He used campaign funds and got people to lie for him to cover it up ON THE CAMPAIGN. And everyone on his staff knew about it.
5. He got this woman pregnant. I mean, srsly.
6. He denied paternity of his child. (Unlike Grover Cleveland, who owned up to it and publicly supported the child...even though it could not be proved the child was his.)
7. He arranged for a MARRIED staff member to pretend to be the father.
8. He did all this knowing he might get the nomination and...if he was found out, as he surely would be, screw the Democratic Party completely.

Pond scum.

[Túrin Turambar]

I've wondered before and will wonder again why so many men with power—specifically political power, which is vulnerable to scandal in a way other forms are not—apparently just can't simply control themselves. Shouldn't they consider it part of the job? These days, for most, it isn't even a long-term job. Once they've done enough powerful men enough favors, they can cash in to power of their own in forms that let them do whatever they want for the rest of their lives.

A lot of these men would have been quiet, studious, and/or awkward in their youths – the over-achiever personality type that tends to make successful politicians. They would have seen other men get a lot of attention from women while they got little or none. Suddenly, later in life, fame, wealth and power have made them confident and attractive, and they have a chance to ‘get back’ at life for the frustration of those early years. Outside the spotlight and out of office, they don’t retain it, so they use it while they can.

To be honest, I can understand it. While I was in high school and university, women had no interest in me. I watched my friends get hit on and date and have girlfriends, but it was a world closed off to me. Hypothetically, if I became wealthy and powerful and famous later in life, and young and attractive women suddenly started finding me desirable, would I be able to resist that temptation? It would be a massive struggle.

That said, I find it hard to sympathise with either Clinton (who, as I understand it, once exposed himself in a hotel corridor to a woman and requested oral sex) or especially Edwards (see Jewel’s post).

[vison]

Lord _M, I seldom disagree with you, but I do disagree quite profoundly with you on this issue.

[Dave_LF]

In men, the sex drive and the power drive are the same thing. Men with a great desire for power have a great desire for sex too, and if they're successful in their quest for the former, they wind up in a position where it's easy to obtain the latter. And for obvious reasons, in a mature system, politics is dominated by individuals with strong power drives. I think that's really all there is to it.

[yovargas]

I kinda doubt that this is anything "special" in powerful men asides from maybe more "availability". Some people cheat on their spouses and there's lots of reasons they do it and some of those people happen to be in positions of power.

[Primula Baggins]

I know infidelity isn't confined to the powerful. But for ordinary people, public scandal is not a risk these days. Personal pain, yes.

I just wonder why so many powerful men do it blatantly and stupidly when their power is political, and so sex scandals do tend to become public and affect (or end) their political careers.

Like vison, I disagree that this phenomenon is a product of the sudden acquisition of power by someone who had been studious and ignored in earlier life. I'm more inclined to believe that charisma and a willingness to use people aid in the acquisition of political power, and that the same traits lead to more access to easy sex and more willingness to take advantage of the opportunity.

[Dave_LF]

At some ancient psychological level, sex is the whole point of power. If your mind operates on that level, to win the power game and then turn down the sex would be a bit winning the lottery and then telling the board to keep the money because you were only playing for fun (it would actually be substantially weirder, because you'd have invested and risked a whole lot more than a dollar to win). I know infidelity happens everywhere, but I'd bet good money it happens a lot more in power circles.

[vison]

At some ancient psychological level, sex is the whole point of power. If your mind operates on that level, to win the power game and then turn down the sex would be a bit winning the lottery and then telling the board to keep the money because you were only playing for fun (it would actually be substantially weirder, because you'd have invested and risked a whole lot more than a dollar to win). I know infidelity happens everywhere, but I'd bet good money it happens a lot more in power circles.

I think you're right, Dave.

[Primula Baggins]

I guess I'll never understand that particular breed of human male. In fact, I feel lucky that I've never had to try.

[Cerin]

I just don't know why Edward's sins are so heinous compared to, say, Clinton's.

I don't think they are. I think the timing magnified them in people's minds, but people detested Edwards and considered him pond scum before he'd done anything wrong. I think the hatred of Clinton was largely political (as it is with Obama, he also being a reportedly charming and charismatic person), but I believe the hatred of Edwards is and was personal.

[JewelSong]

people detested Edwards and considered him pond scum before he'd done anything wrong.

Really? I didn't get that impression at all, Cerin. Edwards was pretty popular and a strong contender for the Democratic nomination...from where I sit, people seemed to really like him. You know, sticking by his wife and the public renewal of their vows and his having lost a child and all that. Which made his betrayal all the worse.

At some ancient psychological level, sex is the whole point of power. If your mind operates on that level...

I agree. And I don't think a man's mind is actually conscious of "operating at that level." It's way down deep, in the lizard brain.

The more sex, the more potential offspring. The more offspring, the longer your line will last. The longer your line lasts, the longer you stay in power...

It's a very old instinct, I think.

[River]

I know infidelity happens everywhere, but I'd bet good money it happens a lot more in power circles.

That brought something to mind...

My family used to live in the D.C. area and for a variety of reasons my father often interacted with aides and lobbyists. One of them, a woman, told him that on the Hill, everyone is out to see how much they can get away with.

[Dave_LF]

I guess I'll never understand that particular breed of human male. In fact, I feel lucky that I've never had to try.

As far as instinct goes, I suspect we're all the same breed. What does differ from individual to individual is the degree to which instinct governs behavior, and the things that the "higher" mental functions value.

[Frelga]

Nah. Some men are womanizers. They just are, and it couldn't be plainer if it were stamped on their foreheads. Clinton is one of those. They tend to be charming and well-liked by men and women, for the same vitality that drives them to women is what draws others to them. While I never had any attraction to this kind of men, I knew some specimen and yes, I liked them. Their two redeeming qualities are being exactly what they appear, and also oddly enough their ability to be a good friend to a woman who is not their lover, so long as she cherishes their ego. I can't tell how perfectly Clinton fits that type, but I suspect pretty well.

I don't recall any mention of money being involved in the Clinton scandal. Unlike in Edwards' case. Once large sums of money enter into the sexual equation, we can stop talking about attraction. There is a different word for it.

As for charismatic leaders, no, they don't usually bloom from the studious and retiring youngsters. I can spend five minutes at a playground and have a clear picture of where every kid is in the pecking order. I'm sure there are exceptions...

On the other hand, Obama is an example of someone who is very charismatic and good looking, yet exudes none of the womanizer vibe. He must be squeaky clean, or we would have heard by now, but it's more than just being too clever to be caught - he seems clearly attracted to his wife. Apparently, it is possible to combine charm, leadership and fidelity.

[Primula Baggins]

Yes. My point is that the men I've known well have largely been able to use their higher mental functions (and maybe to some extent their moral convictions) to govern their instincts. Which is to me pretty much the definition of "civilized."

[vison]

Yes. My point is that the men I've known well have largely been able to use their higher mental functions (and maybe to some extent their moral convictions) to govern their instincts. Which is to me pretty much the definition of "civilized."

Exactamundo.

[JewelSong]

As a friend of mine once exclaimed in disgust, upon hearing about a case of overt infidelity, "You know, some men don't even TRY to evolve."



And I agree with Frelga about Clinton. He is exactly as he appears and a friend of mine who met him called him "the most charismatic man" he had ever met (and this was not someone who was easily swayed.)

I don't recall any mention of money being involved in the Clinton scandal. Unlike in Edwards' case. Once large sums of money enter into the sexual equation, we can stop talking about attraction. There is a different word for it

.

Indeed.

Obama is an example of someone who is very charismatic and good looking, yet exudes none of the womanizer vibe....it's more than just being too clever to be caught - he seems clearly attracted to his wife.

That...and I also get the feeling that Michelle would kick his a** all over the White House if he stepped out of line in that regard.

[Túrin Turambar]

Just thought of this thread again today...

French President François Hollande gave the official New Year press conference today, which seems to be to be something like the American State of the Union address. And when it came time to ask questions, every journalist immediately jumped on the rumours that he has been having an affair with an actress, rumours that he did not deny but promised to address at the proper time.

I find the attitudes of both Hollande and the press interesting. As the BBC correspondent in Paris wrote: “Mr Hollande's answer was concise and not especially revealing. Yes, he was going through a difficult moment in his private life. And yes there would be a decision about the status of Valerie Trierweiler in advance of his planned visit to Washington next month. But for the rest, this was a private matter - and therefore he was not ready therefore to say any more. The French press accepts this. It is perhaps to its credit that it agrees that private maters should remain just that.”

I wonder if there is any significance to the fact that it is extremely common for French Presidents to have affairs, to the point that I have to wonder if there isn’t some sort of cultural acceptance of it. But on the other hand, this story has dominated a major event that should have been given over to policy discussion and the future of France.

Should the journalists refrain from asking these questions? Or does the blame lie with Hollande (assuming the rumours have truth in them) for creating the circumstances where the questions are asked in the first place?