SOUNDING BOARD: Should Gingrich's private life matter to voters?
We are certain to hear more about ethics and morals -- Newt Gingrich's, to be specific -- as the election moves forward, and especially if Gingrich wins the Republican presidential nomination.
Is that fair? We're trying to elect/re-elect a president who can lead us out of these economic doldrums, protect our security and champion American values. Does it really matter if he has been married three times -- and had an extramarital affair with his current wife, Callista, while still married to his previous wife, Marianne?
We asked members of The Californian's Sounding Board for their take on the issue.
***
You have advanced a question regarding ethics, morality and Newt Gingrich, specifically as it relates to three marriages. For me, there is a larger issue.
Newt was married to his first wife for 20 years, during which he indulged in an affair with the woman who became his second wife. He was married to her for 20 years during which he indulged in an affair with the woman who became his third wife. This means that Newt violated his first two marriage oaths, thus breaking a sacred trust with the woman to whom he was married at the time.
As a congressman and speaker of the House, he was investigated for more than 80 alleged violations of House ethics. And while most were dismissed, the stated reason for some dismissals was, essentially, "Well, even if he did do it, he's not doing it anymore, so we'll not pursue it."
From my own viewpoint, this demonstrates by at least a preponderance of evidence that Newt violated his oath of office on more than one occasion, thus breaking a public trust with district, state and nation.
With this history of ignoring both private and public trust, why assume that Newt wouldn't break the presidential oath as casually as he did the others; that he wouldn't use the office to look out for Newt; to enrich himself; reward political contributors; punish political enemies?
Honesty and honor used to count in both personal and public life. It still should!
Eric G. Ziegler of Taft is a semiretired municipal manager.
***
For years, the American people have used the wrong standards to pick their president. The fact that a candidate has been married three or four times, or no times; has had extramarital affairs or is gay, or is Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Southern Baptist or anything else, has no real bearing on their ability to do the job of president, other than possibly not understanding the needs of families.
That is not the case with Newt Gingrich. What is the case is that you will find the "moral majority," a grossly misnamed minority, and the "religious right" will again try to push their values on those of us that don't have their zealous attitudes. In doing this, they will show that they are more interested in personal factors, rather than the candidates' abilities to solve the problems of this country. I personally don't care if they have two heads, as long as they can deal with the problems that we face.
The problem that I see is that neither the president, nor any of the Republican candidates currently in the race, has a snowball's chance in hell of solving our problems -- because they have no interest in doing so. They are only interested in perpetuating and strengthening their own party and position, not in doing what we are hiring them to do! Until that changes, it really doesn't matter.
Bill Schlossenberg of Bakersfield owns a tool company.
***
Our nation's founders clearly understood one stark reality about government and human nature: Even in the best of hands, power is dangerous. They knew that, almost inevitably, power will be abused even by leaders with the highest ethical standards. For that reason, they repeatedly emphasized that the fate of this republic rests principally not on the ethics of its leaders, but on the moral character of its people.
They warned that the survival of our form of government, more than any other on earth, depends crucially on the willingness of its people to govern their own passions and impulses according to wise ethical standards.
America can survive almost any kind of rascal in power and almost any kind of error of policy. But America cannot long survive as a free land and Americans will not long continue as a free people if "We the People," as individuals, fail to exert the moral restraint to live our lives with due respect for the rights of others or to exercise the moral responsibility to do our proper part for the good of the nation.
Consequently, the burden for the moral direction of our nation rests squarely upon our shoulders, not primarily on those we send temporarily to the seats of political power.
Therefore, in my view, the most important thing we can do for America this election season is to take a very hard look, not mainly at the candidates we see each week on television, but at the person we see each day in the mirror.
And perhaps we also need to ponder with utmost seriousness the haunting question posed by John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, both former presidents, in a Christmas Day letter of Dec. 25, 1813: "Have you ever found in history one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue? And without personal virtue there can be no political liberty."
Don Clark of Arvin is a former television broadcaster.
***
Newt Gingrich's public service career displays the fact that his ethics are every bit as good as his morals. Ethics in a presidency are far more important than morals. Few politicians can claim a perfect moral and ethical character. Morals are too imperfect a measuring stick to judge people. All who judge are often immoral themselves.
Everyone sometime in their lives singes the edges of ethics in the eyes of other judgers. Trashing someone for their married or other personal life choices is a moral judgment and not an accurate scale to rate them. "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" and "Do not judge a book by its cover" have credence here. The Christian-Judean "Good Book" and other religions' fundamental tomes put forth as standards of moral and ethical behavior display incredible contradictions.
Repeatedly, so-called moral and ethical politicians, once elected, fall short of their constituents' expectations. The vetting process is imperfect and, if carried too far, chases good people away from even trying to dedicate their lives to public service.
Anyone can put trust in anyone who they believe is worthy of it. Convicted serial killers often have the trust of family and loved ones, even if undeserved. Pronouncing a "sudden death" sentence over a single issue is corrosive to the political process, pushes private agendas and clouds issues that are more important. A candidate can have a very "moral" character, display strong ethics, be a wonderful dedicated and faithful family person, and still be a lousy choice because of other critical failings.
Rich Partain of Bakersfield is a retired Bakersfield College professor.
***
This is a tough call. My instinctive answer is, no, a candidate's personal relationship problems should not take priority over intelligence, knowledge or management skills. And I long for substantive, honest debate about dealing with the many serious issues facing this country and about the need for elected officials to stop yakking about peripheral issues and actually govern.
Unfortunately, in Newt Gingrich's case, he is trying to sell himself to the 20 percent of voters whose big issues are personal -- sexual preference, the importance of marriage and abortion. And it kind of stands out in a big way that he does not practice what he preaches. That makes him a hypocrite. It also reveals him as someone who walks all over other people to get what he wants. And somehow those aren't qualities that I'd want to see in America's highest leader.
Carolyn Ziegler-Davenport of Pine Mountain Club is a freelance writer.
