Do the private lives of public officials really matter? Was Bill Clinton right when he said that “Even presidents have private lives.”? Should we as voters take into account how a candidate lives, or should we care only about the candidate’s policies and opinions?
Those questions are being asked again in light of the arrest of Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, who was nabbed by undercover police in an airport’s men’s room several weeks ago. It turns out that the senator’s sexual orientation has been the subject of considerable speculation in his home state, even though he is married to a woman. After the senator’s arrest, those whisperings became shouts, leading Craig to state publicly that he is not gay.
Should any of this matter? It depends, I suppose, on how you view elected officials, and how tolerant you are of hypocrisy.
If you believe that elected officials are supposed to be role models as well as lawmakers, then their private behavior certainly does matter. But that raises a host of other questions: What sort of behavior disqualifies a politician from being a role model? Infidelity? Neglect of family? Lying? (When I worked on Capitol Hill a quarter century ago, I sat in on a game of liar’s poker with six congressmen. Suffice to say, they were very, very, very good players.) Is a gay politician who is in a long-term relationship more or less of a role model than a promiscuous heterosexual elected leader?
If you believe elected officials are hired to do a job and should be judged only by their public performance, then you have a different series of questions to answer: If your leaders are untrustworthy in private, can they be worthy of your trust in public matters? What about political figures who support positions or policies that contradict their private lives?
The latter question is at the heart of the Larry Craig story. He has fostered an image as a pro-family values politician who has consistently voted against gay rights legislation. He supported a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and voted against the inclusion of sexual orientation in bills designed to combat hate crimes.
Craig obviously is entitled to take those positions. But what if he has been leading a secret life and is, in fact, gay? Shouldn’t his constituents – and specially his supporters – know? Wouldn’t that change their opinion of him? Should it?
Likewise, what about political figures who support pro-life legislation but who have either undergone an abortion, paid for one, or encouraged somebody to have one? What about politicians who call for a return to family values, but whose own families are a mess?
On the other end of the political spectrum, what about a white politician who supports affirmative action but who employs few, if any, minorities? What about male politicians who support women’s issues but who treat women like sex objects behind closed doors?
In all these cases, most of them hypothetical, it is difficult to square public positions with private decisions. But as candidates increasingly depend on image rather than on substance to win votes, the issue of public vs. private will continue to dominate political discussions.
The issue is very much in play in the ongoing battle for the Republican presidential nomination, where former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has deployed his five sons and his one and only wife throughout the country, hoping that voters will notice that his children are behind him, while those of the thrice-married Rudy Giuliani are not. (Andrew and Caroline Giuliani are estranged from the former mayor, according to press reports.)
Again, it’s all about image. I couldn’t tell you a great deal about the policy differences between Romney and Giuliani simply because I haven’t paid close attention yet. But I do know, and many Republican primary voters know, that Mitt Romney’s family picture is a good deal simpler and, perhaps, happier than that of Rudy Giuliani. Romney’s campaign has been very good about inviting the comparison.
But why in the world would we think that Romney’s conventional private life would make him a better president than Rudy Giuliani? Why will some voters pull the lever for Romney in the upcoming elections simply because he seems like a decent family man with all the right values?
I suppose it comes down to the complicated nature of the American presidency. We elect not just a head of government, but a head of state, a person we choose to represent us to the world. The President isn’t just another politician: He or she is supposed to somehow personify American values and traditions, in addition to being a strong executive and an informed leader. That’s why would-be presidents spend so much time talking about their biographies and families at the expense, I would argue, of substance. Every presidential candidate, it seems, has to have a good story as well as a strong platform.
In Britain, the job of representing the nation belongs to the monarch. In Ireland, that’s the president’s job. Neither Queen Elizabeth nor President Mary McAleese is especially powerful, but both are expected to symbolize the values of their respective nation. They are the face of their nations in many international settings, and even at home.
Political power in the U.K. and in the Irish Republic is entrusted to prime ministers, accountable only to his or her party and constituency. Perhaps because their jobs depend on their popularity with their colleagues, who tend to be very practical people, as well as friendly local voters, their private lives don’t seem to matter very much, as Bertie Ahern’s career demonstrates.
The easy solution for Americans would be to abandon the notion that elected leaders are somehow moral exemplars as well as legislators. But then again, such weary cynicism is not the American way. We want our politicians to be more effective managers. We want them to lead by public and private example.
We are bound to be disappointed. But nobody can say that we have low expectations.
