Article for Gary W. Summers.
Newt Gingrich is a brilliant strategist, having devised and implemented the “Contract With America,” which resulted in Republicans gaining control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years (back in 1994). He wrote an excellent book, To Renew America. He is, however, probably unelectable again in light of the fact that he filed for divorce against his wife and is currently seeing a woman 23 years his junior.
On August 31st, The Dallas Morning News published an article about this matter: “Privacy for Politicians Gets Gingrich’s Support” (3A). The first sentence of the article sets the tone for what follows: “Newt Gingrich says attacks on politicians’ private lives have no place in American politics.”
Such a statement can only apply within certain contexts. Attacking a family member on the basis of looks or a lack of talent in certain areas would be inappropriate. Such derision is based on personal, rather than substantive, considerations; it reveals a lack of class on the part of the one leading the assault.
Another appropriate application involves a person dredging up something from the distant past (longer than, say, last week, or two years ago). Someone may have been in a college fraternity in his youth and gotten drunk several times before getting smart. The news media does not need to investigate past bad behavior that has long since been repented of.
Current private behavior, however, does matter. As Rush Limbaugh has frequently advocated, “Leadership descends from character.” Any elected official who does not possess good character at the time of his inauguration is not going to have the moral authority to execute his tasks effectively. Although apparently some no longer care, many Americans cannot respect, follow, or listen to someone who cheats on his wife and lies repeatedly, even under oath. Any appeal to morality that such a man makes is a waste of time–because he has no morals. His job is affected: What validity can the name of a proven liar have when he signs a treaty? How can promises mean anything?
Newt Gingrich suddenly wants private lives kept out of politics, but privacy cannot be considered a privilege if an individual becomes involved in breaking a covenant (which divorce does), committing fraud, lying or deceiving people, smoking pot on the weekends, or inviting an employee to “work late.” These character flaws may well have an effect on one’s ability to do one’s job. In his three-part interview that aired last week on C-Span, Mr. Gingrich (who had filed for divorce the day before the taping) was quite defensive about “privacy”:
“In the first place, nobody is a saint. I mean, if you believe in God, by definition you believe nobody is a saint. So the most religious of people should have the deepest understanding that you’re not going to elect saints, you’re going to elect a sinner, and hopefully, you elect a sinner who prays, a sinner who is self-aware, a sinner who is responsible…Ó (3A).
Obviously, Gingrich is not using the word saint in a Biblical sense, since all Christians are saints and Paul wrote letters to them (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; Phil. 1:1).
So we will assume he means by “saint” a perfect individual. It is doubtful that voters ever really think that their candidate is perfect. In many cases voters do not even agree with their candidate on all matters. However, ideological differences aside, many people want their nominee to be a person of integrity, a person of his word, a person of honor.
We can tolerate differences (though we may think someone is dead wrong on an issue) if we think it is a matter of conviction and honesty. But we despise a man who talks out of both sides of his mouth, depending on what a particular crowd wants to hear. In a movie about Robert Kennedy’s life, he was advised to “play to the crowd” on an issue when he was campaigning in a certain location. He refused to do so, and when asked about his stance, he admitted his unpopular position and attempted to defend it, amidst a chorus of boos. If true (it was a movie, after all), such actions are admirable, particularly in contrast to our current age, in which we are governed by public opinion polls.
We know we are not going to elect any perfect individuals, but it would be nice to see elected officials of principle and honor–who keep their word, who have some semblance of decency, and who have taken care of their private lives in such a way as to avoid public embarrassment. If a person’s personal life is a disaster, how will the country fare?
Mr. Gingrich said his current wife (whom he is divorcing) “is a wonderful and a very smart person, and we’ve had a very long and complex relationship” (3A). Oh, please. What kind of gobbledegook is that? Marriage was not designed to be “a very long and complex relationship”; it was designed to be PERMANENT! Most marriage vows say “till death do us part”–not until someone younger comes along.
The former Speaker’s statement is so nondescript and void of feeling that he could be describing a golfer’s remorse at losing his favorite caddy. Where are words such as husband and wife and responsibility?
Gingrich talked about believing in God. If he believes the Bible, he should study very carefully what Jesus taught in Matthew 19:3-9–especially that part about “let not man put asunder.” Acknowledging that God exists is worthless unless we intend to abide by His commandments (Heb. 5:8-9).
As for the comments about not being “saints,” is that a ploy to receive acceptance in one’s sins? If so, the rationale runs something like this: “We all sin; none of us is perfect. Let’s not throw stones at each other; it’s painful. We’ll just be non-judgmental and all get along and stay out of each other’s personal lives.” That means deserting one’s spouse is all right, and repentance is unnecessary.