In its desperation to bolster failing ratings, ABC substitutes soap opera for news with Gingrich’s ex-wife interview.
History is re-pleat with marital infidelity in leaders. To reject a presidential candidate on the basis of adultery is, in a word, silly. How many presidents would we have lost to this kind of litmus test, including Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy, to mention just a few.
Better to ask whether a person has learned from his or her mistakes and, in the process of life, become a better person for the experience. Better to believe in the power and redemption of God’s loving grace and forgiveness.
We need only to look at the divorce statistics to ask, who among us is eligible to cast the first stone?
Adultery and Politics
What does adultery tell us about a person?
For many Americans, the answer is, “Pretty much all we need to know.” This certainly seems to be the case with regard to presidential candidates. The view is expressed this way: “If he can’t keep his vows to his wife, how can we trust him to keep his vows to his country?”
I am a religious conservative, but I know this statement has no basis in fact. It sounds persuasive, but it is a non-sequitur. We have no reason to believe that men who have committed adultery are less likely to be great leaders, or that men who have always been faithful are more likely to be great leaders. To religious readers, I point to God Himself, who apparently thought that King David deserved to remain king, and even have the Messiah descend from him, despite a particularly ugly form of covering up his adultery (sending Bathsheba’s husband into battle where he would assuredly be killed).