{"id":52153,"date":"2012-01-21T07:33:44","date_gmt":"2012-01-21T12:33:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/?p=52153"},"modified":"2012-01-21T13:02:59","modified_gmt":"2012-01-21T18:02:59","slug":"in-defense-of-family-values","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/by-judith-gayle-2\/in-defense-of-family-values\/","title":{"rendered":"In Defense of Family Values"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Judith Gayle | Political Waves<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

I’m sure there are places in the world where potential presidents’ sex lives are less important than their leadership skills or policy choices, like all of Europe, for instance. But not here. Here, we are invested in the covert details of our leaders sex lives, and for good or ill, it matters. It matters because such information presumes to offer a snapshot of a politician’s character and ability to uphold traditional culture and family values; or at least it did.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"Political<\/dt>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

It now appears that rather than accept Mitt as the only viable presidential candidate, or embrace Santorum as an electable choice rather than an ideological one, the Pubs in South Carolina may forgive Newt Gingrich both his demand for open marriage and his habit of leaving ill and suffering wives in the lurch. Newt is surging. The Pub base is desperate for an un-Romney that might unseat Obama, and it’s put them in a position to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea.<\/p>\n

In tandem with the shift of so much else, it appears Republican voters are no less appalled at the sexual history of some of their politicians, but suddenly pragmatic, are resolved to hold their noses. In the fight to rid themselves of the black guy, they’ll throw everything under the bus, even issues of morality. Well, almost. Marianne didn’t say Newt had suggested incorporating another guy in the triad, so open hetero-marriage doesn’t seem to be ruffling Pub feathers as we might have supposed. Perhaps it’s the influence of their high priest, Rush Limbaugh, who considers Newt’s marriage request no big thing:<\/p>\n

So Newt wanted an open marriage. BFD. At least he asked his wife for permission instead of cheating on her. That’s a mark of character, in my book. Newt’s a victim. We all are. Ours is the horniest generation. We were soldiers in the sex revolution. We were tempted by everything from Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice to Plato’s retreat, Deep Throat to no fault divorce. Many of us paid the ultimate price, AIDS, abortion, or alimony for the cultural marching orders we got. Hell, for all I know we should be getting disability from the government<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A bit of hypocrisy from a four-times married blowviator? Yes, considering his over-the-top vendetta against Clinton for the Monica scandal and a supposed love of “Republican family values” that becomes suspect when you Google Rush and the word “gay.” I’d be interested in an explanation of the third wife and him living in separate homes for their entire marriage, but I suppose such a question would hint of slander: you know, little blue pills and alleged sex-trip to the Dominican Republic aside. But don’t say that too loud if you want to avoid Hurricane Rush. That’s where it all gets tricky and goes south.<\/p>\n

Conservatives are expert at playing that victim card<\/a>. Mentioning anything they’ve done is synonymous with attack. They can make a mountain out of a teensy liberal molehill and suggest civilization as we know it is doomed, but pointing out any of their nonsense is considered an orchestrated media blitz against conservative values. Decades of that have made the left uniformly silent on most of these issues. We’re used to embarrassing incidents leaking out of conservative closets, including a “wide stance” incident in Rush’s youth. The conservative defense, should they offer one, is stunningly simple and obtuse: nothing to see here, move along.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

But there is something to see, most of it sexually repressed and dysfunctional. The red states have the most child welfare and the most teen pregnancies, and evangelicals have one of the highest rates of divorce. It takes some real balls to call liberals the hedonists, but projection is conservatives’ first line of defense. Their dismal track record is to be expected. When you erect a prohibition against something, you can be sure it will be broken more often than if you’d kept your mouth shut. Liberals don’t throw that first stone, they leave that to those who are pretending they’re squeaky clean, and there are always plenty in line.<\/p>\n

Our motley crew of Republican contenders has now lost a few of their number. The Santorum campaign didn’t want to split the evangelical vote, so they questioned God’s approval of putting a woman in a leadership position: adios, Michele Bachmann. Herman Cain and Rick Perry had enough brash attitude to raise their numbers high, but not enough brain-power to keep them there. Besides being too Bush-like, Perry had an unwelcomed compassionate streak, and Cain’s peccadilloes woke the party up to the color of his skin, which would have eventually become unworkable for a party of old, white and deeply threatened Dixiecrats. Huntsman? Entirely too smart and thoughtful, and that says everything you need to know about the radicalization of the Republican party.<\/p>\n

Newt, though, has got the keys to the kingdom. The confederate flag flies over South Carolina’s courthouse and Newt is racist to the bone, calling Obama the “food stamp” president. With that pronouncement, visions of the ghetto danced in all those white conservative heads, allowing them to forget that some of their neighbors’ houses were boarded up, that many of their friends and family were without employment, and that most everyone they know was on food stamps, including themselves. In a state where racism is overt<\/a>, Gingrich got an enthusiastic uptick in support. To quote one of South Carolina’s African-American citizens, “White folks around here talk about taking the country back when it hasn’t been anywhere. The fact is they don’t like a black man as president. They think he has taken something that belongs to them.” And Newt will tell them they’re absolutely right, using what we call “dog whistles,” radical Republican buzzwords.<\/p>\n

Then, on the very day that Rick Perry dropped out, sending his supporters over to Gingrich, Newt’s second wife’s tell-all interview broke. By that evening’s debate, Newt was primed and ready for CNN’s John King to ask the question everyone wanted answered. We were then treated to one of those campy, over-the-top displays of outrage and self-pity that only the conservatives can produce:<\/p>\n

\u201cI think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that,\u201d he thundered.<\/p>\n

At this there was a standing ovation. \u201cIs that all you want to say, sir?\u201d King asked. It was not. Gingrich went on to say that raising the subject was \u201cas close to despicable as anything I can imagine\u201d and to pronounce himself \u201cfrankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.\u201d When King protested that the interview had originated at another network and that it had become a major subject on the campaign trail, Gingrich cut him off and roared: \u201cI am tired of the elite media protecting Obama by attacking Republicans.\u201d The crowd was roaring now. It was the strongest reaction they\u2019d have all night.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hear the hypocrisy? We’ve heard it before. How DARE liberal press ask these embarrassing questions? Citing facts, questioning intent? Liberal attack, not allowed during the Bush years, and still not allowed in the world inhabited by those who prefer to rest their laurels in the sunny climes and delusional rhetoric of Ron Reagan’s fictional America. It’s a liberal smear job to ask if Marianne Gingrich has truth on her side. It’s a liberal assault to question Herman Cain’s behavior, even as woman after woman steps up to accuse him of impropriety. It’s only liberal viciousness that makes Juan Williams question the racism of Newt’s carefully-crafted message. And the thundering applause that standing up to such liberal impudence earns him will likely give South Carolina to past-speaker and churlish egomaniac, Newt Gingrich.<\/p>\n

Sex and power, power and sex. There’s a question of ego at the heart of this, of course, and historical patriarchy that belongs in centuries past, but we seldom get that far into the investigation. It’s easier to vilify on moral points without taking into account the expectations of the nation. The nation does not expect its president to cheat, any more than it expects him to bomb a defenseless country, rob it of its resources, or make victims of the citizens that supported him. Well — there it is: in a world gone topsy-turvy, what IS our expectation of a president these days?<\/p>\n

If you look at our national history, there was a very small window when the marital fidelity of presidents mattered: roughly, the last half of the 20th century. Prior to that, there were almost always presidential mistresses hidden in the back room, and the press was complicit in keeping these things mum. Perhaps it was considered none of the public’s business.<\/p>\n

Jon Stewart recently did a fantasy bit about going back in time to consult one of the nation’s founders. He selected Ben Franklin, finding him buck naked with two attractive young ladies and willing to share. Jon had done his homework; he’s historically correct: Ben was a player. At the turn of the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt was a man of big appetites, but he played by the marital rules, while his cousin, FDR, later died in the arms of his mistress. Another Roosevelt and cousin, FDR’s wife Eleanor was unable to deal with this kind of marriage and found relationship elsewhere. Rumors had her with one of her own gender.<\/p>\n

Even Ike had his pretty driver, Capt. Kay Summersby, but Truman wasn’t the type to step out on Bess. JFK’s trysts were legendary, LBJ’s were hushed but numerous. It has now been alleged that Jackie didn’t take it well, while Ladybird reportedly suffered it like a Southern lady and put her energy into beautifying the nation, carrying wildflower seeds in her purse to pretty up the highways. Now some are speculating on Nixon’s cruelty to his long-suffering wife, Pat, and his relationship with a shady comrade, mob-connected Charles “Bebe” Rebozo. Hard to prove at this point, but old Tricky Dick DID seem a lot easier in Bebe’s company than Pat’s, and most of us wondered who the hell Bebe was and why he was around so much. His own office and bedroom in the White House, you say? Oh well. Better than under the presidential desk in the Oval Office.<\/p>\n

Nixon woke us up to corruption, but it was Carter who woke us up to sex. When Jimmy Carter reported lusting in his heart to Playboy, the nation suddenly seemed awakened to all matters sexual in the White House. Up to that point, nobody much talked about it and certainly not to the press. In whistleblower fashion, the one who transgressed the least on fidelity turned out to be the catalyst for awareness.<\/p>\n

The Obamas seem happily married, and except for the expected Inquirer nonsense, no rumors fly. By the time the Bushes arrived, GW seemed to have left his past as a self-proclaimed “cocksman” behind, too busy blowing the shit out of the Mideast to have time for sexual dalliance. We’ve had twelve years of marital stability in the White House. We’ll see if our luck holds.<\/p>\n

Until recently, the Obama administration considered only Romney a viable threat, but now it appears that Romney might lose this round. Releasing his tax information would help him look like he had nothing to hide, but of course he does: his ultra-low 15% obligation on an amount of money Midas would envy and his giving $1.9 million-worth of Burger King stock to the Mormon church. Pub populists, a.k.a. Tea Partiers, aren’t likely to approve. No matter what Mitt does, nothing will disprove his reputation as an elite corporate insider, and that’s not an easy position to defend in 2012.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, reports that Santorum did well in the last debate, along with his revised win in Iowa, might split the vote with Newt, giving Mitt an edge. He needs one. Nobody — discounting several million Mormons and the 1% — can easily entertain the idea of magic underwear in the White House, but if you ask that nice black couple who live there now, even greater odds have been beaten in an American election.<\/p>\n

Of the remaining Republican candidates, Santorum and Paul at least strike me as sincere. I think Mitt has a Mormon agenda that we don’t know about, but can guess at since they proclaim end-time prophecy with one of their own saving the world. I would truly be horrified if any of the Republican nominees won the White House, but I have particular issue with Newt and Callista, wifey number three, who “wouldn’t mind” sharing. I don’t care about the sexual arrangement, but one word out of either of them about family values would make me spit up. Since Newt has an agreement with Gawd, a huge ego and an even bigger mouth, that particular version of hypocrisy would be unavoidable.<\/p>\n

If the eight years of Bush taught us anything, it’s how quickly damage can be done. It seems to me that if any Republican wins in November, the revolution is on. Me, I’m always arguing for the easier way — the way of realization, the way of collaboration, the way of love — but snatching this nation back from the ideologues who have spent decades reconfiguring law to suit themselves has always been an uphill battle, and some people are still asleep to what we’re looking at. If elitism, racism and plain old chicanery haven’t given us enough reason to re-think our political druthers, the months ahead look to give us plenty of opportunity.<\/p>\n

One thing is clear, though. It’s none of our business what’s going on in anybody’s bedroom, but ALL of us have to be mindful of what’s going on in American boardrooms. If we are to recreate this nation, it will take you and me — in the streets, in the town hall, the media and the courts — doing the hard work that makes democracy possible. Equality, integrity, commonwealth: the family values of a nation looking to begin again.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Judith Gayle | Political Waves I’m sure there are places in the world where potential presidents’ sex lives are less important than their leadership skills or policy choices, like all of Europe, for instance. But not here. Here, we are invested in the covert details of our leaders sex lives, and for good or … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":""},"categories":[1744],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52153"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52153"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52153\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}