An Admission With Suspicion

It is first and foremost a sad story: another wife has been cheated on by her politically ambitious husband. Adding to the sadness is the fact that the wife is a cancer victim, and that her husband, when asked about rumors about his affair with an aide, unequivocally denied the affair to the American public.

But according to John Edward's own words, he is a victim: the nature of political success inflames a man's ego, making him vulnerable to a sense of invincibility his many adoring friends unwittingly fuel. Because the world gives a popular politician too much, he believes the world is his for the taking. Here's his explanation of why he committed adultery, given in an interview on ABC's Nightline:

Here's what, can I explain to you what happened? First of all it happened during a period after she was in remission from cancer, that's no excuse in any possible way for what happened. This is what happened. It's what happened with me and I think happens unfortunately more often sometimes with other people. ... Ego. Self-focus, self-importance. Now, I was slapped down to the ground when my son Wade died in 1996, in April of 1996. But then after that I ran for the Senate and I got elected to the Senate and here we go again, it's the same old thing again. Adulation, respect, admiration. Then I went from being a senator, a young senator to being considered for vice president, running for president, being a vice presidential candidate and becoming a national public figure. All of which fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want. You're invincible. And there will be no consequences. And nothing, nothing could be further from the truth.

It is a serious admission. I respect that Mr. Edwards recognizes the gravity of what he has done. He was dishonest with his wife, and then dishonest with a nation.

But it does seem that he is not really willing to take full responsibility for what he did. Having lied to himself that there would be "no consequences," he still seems intent on minimizing those consequences. For he makes two appeals to sympathy: First, his wife was sick and second, his son had died in 1996. These two facts are indeed facts, and, as he said, the former does not "excuse" a thing, but they are inserted not merely to provide context but to foster sympathy in his listeners. Why else are they part of the explanation if they do not excuse a thing?

A minor point, I realize. But the other point is not so minor. Mr. Edwards is a victim of the process of running for office, as "adulation, respect and admiration," things he can only receive, proved too irresistible for him. This, he says, is "what happened with me and I think happens unfortunately more often sometimes with other people."

There are two things that trouble me in this whole story that are not part of most of the initial commentary. The first is that John Edwards has told us his wife knew about his affair before America entered the heart of the election season. What was SHE thinking campaigning for her husband? If it's true that he repeatedly denied the affair to media inquiries, was she not actually complicit in this dishonesty as she campaigned at his side? Did she think they would deal with the issue later, perhaps after securing the nomination or even the presidency?

Perhaps one can defend her silence and acquiescence because she believed marital difficulties are private. And, indeed, they are -- in most cases. But the highest offices in the land demand some transparency: it is not a good thing that a president takes office with divorce lawyers knocking on the White House doors looking to settle child custody rights. Privacy sort of goes out the window when you seek the office of Body Politic Incarnate; and it definitely goes out the window the moment you DENY having had an affair, for such a denial tacitly admits the question is legitimate.

The second disturbing part of this tale is that Mr. Edwards quite clearly has more to tell: the issues about his mistress, the paternity of her child, and various suggestions of payoffs for his mistress' silence, all scream for more than Mr. Edwards' dismissal. That he admits he was recently at his mistress' hotel in the middle of the night -- to tell her that she should "not tell the public what happened" -- is suspicious and unconvincing.

An unfortunate story all around, one that will, I am afraid, have more details forthcoming than we presently have before us.

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Tags: John Edwards, Infidelity, Victim, Admission, Guilt

Wife Guilt: Why Some Women Stand By Their Men (And Other Realities)

Eliot Spitzer’s downfall has brought much discussion to the airwaves and blogosphere, with no small part of that discussion comprising speculations as to why his beloved wife, Silda, would stand at his much disgraced side. Very cynical commentators have suggested that her marital posture reveals a dark political strategy, or some nefarious desire to hold on to power. The same commentators liken Mrs. Spitzer’s resolute stance to Hillary Clinton’s allegedly politically calculated commitment to her unfaithful husband. Others see a heroic woman trying to hold her family together, while some see a woman too stupid to see she’s been shamed and abused by an aggressive and arrogant husband. (One conservative female blogger might not see Mrs. Spitzer as stupid, but surely she sees abuse in parading Mrs. Spitzer out onto the stage.)

There is much to say about all these observations, but I am not the person to say it. My default position is to see a woman who is in shock; I see a woman who looks like she has been forced to witness the execution of her children. If you ask me, Mrs. Spitzer looks in dire need of healing.

But I also see in Mrs. Spitzer's actions the possibility of Wife Guilt: The reason she is standing with her husband is because she feels guilty for sexually failing her husband. I can almost hear the tape in her head: It’s my fault, for what sort of wife fails to keep her husband happy? How could a wife of such an important man – a man attractive in so many ways – fail to keep her man satisfied? How could a wife who is clearly attractive, even beautiful, fail to keep that man content? I'm responsible for this: surely there must be something wrong with me!

And that is indeed what no one seems to be exploring: there might be something wrong. All kinds of married couples have ceased sexual relations with each other; we all know that things change in marriages. Many women in this country suffer from depression, and menopause is no small hindrance to sexual excitement, especially when depression or chronic fatigue is part of the equation. Many wives know that their husbands’ sexual urges do not decline with age, at least in the same way as a woman who has stopped ovulating loses her "urges." No doubt this puts such wives in a very precarious place. And so, too, their husbands, who are daily, even hourly, bombarded with sexual images and invitations for "mind-blowing" pleasures.

I have heard of several married couples who have made curious and risky sexual compromises with each other. Some wives give tacit approval to their husbands to solicit extra-marital sex so to keep their men happy, but only as long as such husbands recognize their offshore ventures are to be strictly about sex (no love allowed!). I know one menopausal woman who said recently that she would prefer it if her husband would just go out and find a little satisfaction, for she is too tired and too guilty to help him. I once dined (sort of) with a very progressive bi-sexual Episcopal priest and his wife who had struck an even more curious deal: she could have heterosexual extra-marital affairs, while he enjoyed sexual liaisons with men. The one caveat was that they could not commit “real adultery” by falling in love with their respective lovers. Sadly, couples strike deals, implicit and explicit, all the time.

Perhaps the Spitzers had a similar sort of deal, maybe even one that went unspoken. Maybe Mrs. Spitzer is ill. Or maybe Gov. Spitzer was cavorting with very high price prostitutes because there was some guarantee of anonymity; a "typical" affair would be too messy and too risky, even if his wife approved. Maybe some high-end escort services are set up strictly to serve clientele that cannot do the normal “public affairs” route. Husbands who believe they have the tacit approval for this sort of behavior nonetheless feel they must be discreet, so spending big money is seen as a sort of protection.

I realize, of course, that I am speculating about the unknown realities of the Spitzer marriage bed. But I am not speculating about the realities of many married couples, the impulses of men, and the fact that many wives feel guilty for losing their sexual passions (or for simply getting old). One of my childhood friends lost his wife to cancer in a slow and miserable death; her guilt for not being able to have sex with him as she slowly died was one of the burdens he could not carry for her no matter how hard he tried to reassure her that he was fine (and boy, the guilt he felt for thinking about sex beyond her death, while she was still alive, was nearly enough to kill him).

All this to say that we do not know the reasons Mrs. Spitzer is standing on the dais with her fallen husband. But guilt might be the reason she’s not running toward divorce court. Sadly, much of that guilt is often self-imposed, reinforced by a culture that tells us that we not only CAN have it all – success, luxury, power, money, sexual fulfillment, perpetual health and beauty – but that we MUST have it all.

In short, in all of this, I see nothing but grief and sorrow, and a great deal of ugliness.

But, in the end, even if there is no dysfunction in the Spitzer bedroom, even if Mrs. Spitzer feels no guilt at all, there is the distinct chance she still feels responsible. I, at least, have known more than a few women who have taken responsibility for ALL the problems in their marriages. And that, as we all know, is a terrible weight to carry.

(One note: I had a very cynical college buddy who believed that the best way to keep a woman attached to you was to pull away from her; cheating on her was seen as the best way to keep her close. His theory was based on vanity, that the woman would be drawn closer to her cheating man to find out how she had fallen out of favor. The woman would fret to no end: Have I lost my allure? my beauty? my sex appeal? Did I do something wrong? My friend felt this worked even if the guy was a loser. But it especially worked if he was a great success, at least in the eyes of the world. Surely a successful man who wandered was saying that his wife was not up to par, no? That there was something wrong with her?

Of course, PAYING for sex is not the best evidence that a guy is particularly skilled at romancing the ladies.)

Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.