The Real Cost of Adultery

In 1998, the United States House of Representatives voted to impeach arguably the most popular and most successful president the country had seen in 40 years.  It was only the second impeachment of a sitting president in the country’s history and the first since the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.  For his part, Bill Clinton had presided over one of the largest economic booms in the nation’s history, came closer than any previous (or subsequent) president to brokering a final-status solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and had managed to keep the military out of any major conflict for the duration of his two terms.  Yet all this counted for nothing once it was discovered that he had lied under oath about having an sexual relationship with a 22-year-old White House intern named Monica Lewinsky.

Though Clinton was eventually acquitted on all charges (perjury, abuse of power and obstruction of justice), the damage to his reputation and his political career had already been done.  However, unfortunately for the rest of us, the damage to the nation and to the world was just getting started.  Two years after the hysteria had reached its climax, Americans went to the poles to choose the man who would lead them through the next four years and possibly beyond.  Their two main options were the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, who had served as Vice President under Bill Clinton and Republican candidate, George W. Bush, the erstwhile governor of Texas and eldest son of Clinton’s immediate predecessor George H.W. Bush.

In an election that was ultimately decided by around 500 votes, (obviously not withstanding the thievery of Bush and his Supreme Court accomplices), even the smallest of wedge issues had the potential to tip the balance.  And the Bush campaign took full advantage, with Bush seizing every opportunity to declare his intention to restore ‘honour and dignity’ to the White House in a thinly-veiled reference to the sexual trysts of Gore’s former boss.  As contrived as it may have been, Bush’s image as a straight talking, morally upright, Christian, family man provided the ideal contrast to the smooth-talking, adulterer that was Bill Clinton.  And this proved to be just enough for Bush to bring the election within stealing distance.

Over the eight years that followed, America and the world paid the price for the electorate’s colossal error in judgment.  The war in Iraq has cost the United States close to a trillion dollars and more than 4000 dead soldiers, to say nothing of the over one million Iraqi civilians who’ve perished as a result of this senseless act of imperialism.

At the very most, the Lewinsky scandal was a small but necessary factor in securing the ascension of George W. Bush to the presidency of the United States.  Sort of like the butterfly effect on Viagra.  But it underscores the fact that when enough people become preoccupied with issues that, in the grand scheme of things, are really trivial, the results can be disastrous.  This point was illustrated once again in late March, 2008 when the New York Times reported that then-governor of the state of New York, Eliot Spitzer had frequented an escort service.  What ensued was a media lynching that eventually caused the Governor to hold a press conference in which he ‘fessed up and apologized profusely for his misgivings, and summarily resigned from his post.

What has remained largely absent from the post-scandal commentary is the fact that Spitzer was extremely well-versed in the pathology of the struggling U.S. economy and had even predicted the current crisis.  Furthermore, during his years as New York’s attorney general, Spitzer had developed a reputation as an aggressive prosecuter of White collar crimes and had gone after several of the institutions that are being blamed for today’s crisis.  In fact, it was precisely Spitzer’s refusal to cozy up to those in positions of power that made him so vulnerable when he found himself in the hot seat.  Spitzer’s replacement in the Governor’s mansion, by all accounts, was the polar opposite of Spitzer in terms of his approach to governing.  David Paterson was known as a conciliatory figure, who got along with everyone and, whenever possible, chose diplomacy over confrontation.  Ironically, as we would soon learn, among their few similarities was a common affinity for extra-marital sex.

Now, it’s certainly not the case that had Spitzer remained in office the financial crisis would have been averted.  However, as governor of the state that houses the institutions that comprise America’s financial engine, he could have been a useful asset in mitigating the economic fallout that commenced shortly after his ouster.

The fact that a state would so readily dispose of an otherwise effective, democratically-elected official over actions that have virtually no impact on anyone outside his immediate family and break no real laws (beyond those that have been recognized even by law enforcement to be archaic and have long ago ceased being enforced) speaks to society’s deep-seated, irrational fixation with adultery.  I say irrational because the outrage that characterizes the public response to acts of adultery committed by public figures is completely non-commensurate with the cost to the public apart from the cost we bring upon ourselves by overreacting.

In the absence of any material effect such behaviour may have on a politician’s constituents, most critics point to the lack of integrity required to cheat on ones spouse and deduce that this deficiency necessarily translates to these men being untrustworthy in their professional lives.  But the reality is that there is no empirical data whatsoever to support such a claim.  In his famous treatise on sexual behaviour in the human male, Alfred Kinsey found that 50% of married men have sex with women other than their wives at some point during their lives and according to infidelityfacts.com, 74% of married men say they would have an affair if they knew that would never get caught.  Given the level of narcissism and megalomania required to even think about running for president, not to mention the number of willing partners at their disposal, these numbers are probably even higher among heads of state.  In another place and time, the actions of both Clinton and Spitzer, even if substantiated, wouldn’t even have been considered newsworthy.

Still, in spite of these statistics, I acknowledge that infidelity can be a huge problem with devastating effects for those involved.  But isn’t that all the more reason for us to say that adultery is bad enough as it is?  Why should we exacerbate its impact by making it everybody’s problem?  At the end of the day, what we're fussing over is nothing more than a series of non-criminal acts committed by two consenting adults.  And as the last eight years have shown, we’re all better off with a sexual philanderer, who’s good at being president than a political ignoramus, who’s good at being a husband.

AlexsJenkins