John Edwards cheats on his expensive haircut, who cares?

The news story of the weekend is John Edwards' admitting to an affair he had back in 2006 with a documentary film maker. He cheated on his wife Elizabeth,who, at that time was battling cancer(which has since recurred). Among other revelations in this case was the fact that an Edwards political action committee paid 100 gs to the film maker Rielle Hunter's fledgling company to direct 4 shorts, one of them a mere 2&1/2 minutes in length. But heck, why should we care about this? Does this in any way reflect on Edwards' record of public service and his commitment to his constituents?

Now I realize that I am imitating the news media's worst traits in this entry. After reporting the tabloid friendly details of this case I am flipping it around and asking you why these things matters. It's just like the reporters, who, with a dead serious expression ask viewers if the media is over exposing the Obama campaign and thereby aid the very process they purport to question or critique. I am guilty as charged of aiding the sensationalistic process in this case. You gotta break an egg every now and then folks.

Every time one of these scandalous affairs starts getting press I always have to question the intentions of the public moralisers who self righteously claim the high ground and hurl rocks on the john(in this case the John). Doesn't splashing the details on the news only make it worse for the cuckolded spouse while the commentators play the role of ceremonial salt rubbers. That aside, my fundamental question is this - what relation does a man's private indiscretions have to his public life. Isn't it possible to be a jerk in your personal affairs and be an exemplary character in public life? Take a case from the movies - Rusell Crowe's horndog detective Richie Roberts from "American Gangster" (based on a real person) who pursues the drug dealer Frank Lucas with an almost religious zeal. Notwithstanding his marital infidelities and habitual inability to adhere to personal commitments, he is incorruptible when it comes to his work.

Lets look closely at the matter. Firstly, having an affair is not illegal. It is a private matter and I believe it should remain in that sphere. John lied about the affair several times, just like his infamous predecessor Bill Clinton. But shouldn't a public official have the right to lie about his private affairs like any other upstanding dirt bag boyfriend or slut girlfriend without any legal or professional consequences? It is certainly not perjury to do so. The only court that he is addressing in an interview is the court of self righteous public opinion, one that I personally don't care for and actively dislike. Don't get me wrong, I don't feel any pity for John Edwards but I just don't see the legitimacy's of comments like this one by David Bonior, Edwards' campaign manager for his 2008 presidential bid - "Thousands of friends of the senators and his supporters have put their faith and confidence in him and he's let them down," Have we, really? Did he walk down the aisle with us? I don't remember any politician making a commitment to stay faithful to his wife, to us. I guess to me, judging a public official's private morals comes too close to mixing church with state. There is too much of the sanctity of marriage, family values above all else, bourgie righteousness to it that is the very same stuff that is responsible for support for bans on gay marriage.

I do think that in a case like that of disgraced senator Larry Craig the press has a right to question him and the people have a right to call for his resignation. Firstly he broke the law; a minor one to be sure and one that I could overlook, even in a senator. You have to understand that I have pretty loose standards and think it best to suspend judgement for minor crimes. I would go as far as to support minor infringements of the law as a method of self expression and social protest.

What was more troubling about his case was his hypocritical voting record with regards to gay rights. In such a case there is a clear intersection between private and public realms and a divergence in the judgements shown in the two cases. In the public sphere he supported harsher legislation against the homosexual community and thus drew on the support of religious conservatives who railed against the immorality of unconventional lifestyles. In his private life he cruised an airport bathroom; something that is a crime regardless of one's sexual orientation. The gross contradictions between the two stances he took, the high moral one in public and the low one he adopted in private life made him fair game. As far as I am concerned there has been no such contradiction between Edwards' public commitments and his private indiscretions.

Joeoverkill likes to adress the issue of personal responsibility. I agree with his support of this concept at times. Sometimes I think he goes too far and seems unable to empathise with people, who, because of extenuating mental or physical circumstances, are unable to exercise restraint and adhere to the tenets of personal responsibility. Similarly, I disagree with him on guns which I believe are too dangerous to be left in the hands of all too human humans. I think this John Edwards scandal is yet another case of personal responsibility. This matter is Mr Edwards' private and personal responsibility, not something that we need to trouble our collective judgements over and punish.