The sleaze factor (The John Edwards trial)

[Alatar]

Personally, I believe that as long as he isn't breaking the law, his private life should remain private. I don't subscribe to the oft-repeated view that lack of judgement in private life somehow equates to lack of judgement in professional life (even if one were to agree that his affair shows lack of judgement, which I personally don't consider myself qualified to judge).

[JewelSong]

Personally, I believe that as long as he isn't breaking the law, his private life should remain private. I don't subscribe to the oft-repeated view that lack of judgement in private life somehow equates to lack of judgement in professional life (even if one were to agree that his affair shows lack of judgement, which I personally don't consider myself qualified to judge).

In general, I agree with you, Al. And the French do seem to consider having a mistress as part and parcel of being in office. I am not sure why this time, it seems to be such a "scandal."

However, in Edward's case, I think his behavior went far beyond the pale. Not only did he have an affair, he did it
1. While running for the office of POTUS.
2. While his wife was struggling with cancer.
3. In full view of the press and his staff
4. Involving members of his staff in deception and outright lies
and he
5. Impregnated his mistress and then
6. Got another staff member to claim paternity of the child.

(The quality and motives of his mistress,Rielle Hunter, was also questionable...I am not a judge, but if any of you have read excerpts from her book "What Really Happened" you will find it quite cringe-inducing.)

I certainly believe that at least in Edward's case, his "personal life" affected and would affect his ability to be effective as a public figure.

[Frelga]

It may be true that the French are OK with adultery, but Americans generally aren't.

I've seen some French and Italian movies where an affair turns out to be a positive or at least a non-destructive event for the original couple, and they just don't translate into American. My impression is that at the least in an American movie the original family tends to break and the new relationship form, although it is quite likely that I am missing a bunch.

There is also the tendency for American politicians to portray themselves as wholesome family men. An exposed affair then puts into the limelight the artificial nature of the public image.

[Túrin Turambar]

From The Guardian:

Now if this were happening in, say, London or Washington the pre-event hype would have a single, clear theme: we would be saying that the embattled prime minister/president was fighting for his political life. His job would be deemed to be hanging by a thread. Some at least would be predicting resignation.

But this is France. So far the only political fallout from the Closer revelations has been a slight uptick in the opinion polls for the president. You read that right. Conforming to Gallic stereotype, French voters appear to think more of Hollande now that they know his bodyguard ferries him by motorcycle for alleged late-night trysts with his lover. His ratings have improved by two points. Meanwhile, the story has spawned a social media phenomenon: an online game in which players have to navigate the president, complete with motorcycle helmet, to his Julie.

Here is the game. There are some truly interesting ways of commenting on the news in the age of the internet.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Personally, I believe that as long as he isn't breaking the law, his private life should remain private. I don't subscribe to the oft-repeated view that lack of judgement in private life somehow equates to lack of judgement in professional life (even if one were to agree that his affair shows lack of judgement, which I personally don't consider myself qualified to judge).

In general, I agree with you, Al. And the French do seem to consider having a mistress as part and parcel of being in office. I am not sure why this time, it seems to be such a "scandal."

However, in Edward's case, I think his behavior went far beyond the pale. Not only did he have an affair, he did it
1. While running for the office of POTUS.
2. While his wife was struggling with cancer.
3. In full view of the press and his staff
4. Involving members of his staff in deception and outright lies
and he
5. Impregnated his mistress and then
6. Got another staff member to claim paternity of the child.

(The quality and motives of his mistress,Rielle Hunter, was also questionable...I am not a judge, but if any of you have read excerpts from her book "What Really Happened" you will find it quite cringe-inducing.)

I certainly believe that at least in Edward's case, his "personal life" affected and would affect his ability to be effective as a public figure.

This. I never liked Edwards on a personal level, and am not in the least surprised by his actions. He exercised incredibly poor judgment in both his private and public life. As soon as he decided to mix his public and private lives (through the involvement of his political staff, and the misuse of funds in a separate incident) his actions became a mix of public and private, and thus fair game in terms of assessing his capacity to lead the nation. Is it possible he would have made a good President? Yes, it's possible. But IMO, he didn't deserve the chance to prove it.

[Passdagas the Brown]

And there are numerous reasons to applaud southern Europe - ranging from cuisine to architecture to a high quality of life to a generous social model. But tolerance for chauvinism (Berlusconi in Italy, Hollande & KSM in France) is not one of those reasons.

[Nin]

[ And the French do seem to consider having a mistress as part and parcel of being in office. I am not sure why this time, it seems to be such a "scandal."

There are several reasons first why the French seem to consider that having a mistress is part of the office and why it is such a scandal - although the scandal ist quite relative. Even the conservative extreme right does not condemn Hollande for his affair.

First: why is having a mistress so generally accepted for the president of the State? For instance, président Mitterrand had a mistress and a daughter by her which was apparently known by the media, but never openly revealed until he decided to present his daughter Mazarine to the public. BUT: his wife and his mistress knew all the time of their mutual existence. At his funeral they were standing side by side and had both been with him during the last days of his life.
Having a mistress is a very old tradition in France, still coming in fact from royalty, and its origin lies partially in the French succession laws: the French king needed a son. A daughter could not and under no circumstances inherit the throne. In French history, there is no equivalent to the Queens Elizabeth or Victoria, to Marie-Theresa of Austria or Isabelle of Castillia. The French kings were married often very young (even for the time and their position) and had no matter whatsoever to say in the question. And the position of the queen was not strong - neither was if for any royal daughter, by the way. The only strong position at court for a woman was the position of the mistress. And the mistress "en titre" was often covered with gifts and attention. Some of the mistresses were extrememly famous and powerful - the best known example is eventually Madame de Pompadour, beloved mistress of Louis XV. The only king of France without any known mistress was Louis XVI - who got decapitated which is not a good omen. The other extrememly famous French politician known for his refus of a mistress (or any kind of extravagance) was Robespierre. So, sexual austerity and political power don't seem to match very well in France....

There is a very deep distrust towards women in formal powerful positions too. Maybe, this mistrust is as ancient as the time of French royalty.

Now, this time the situation is particular for many reasons.

Président Hollande and his companion, Valérie Trierweiler, are not married. Worse, she has been his mistress while he was still married to Ségolène Royal who is not only the mother of his four children but also member of the same party and the precedent socialist candidate to the presidency, five (now six) years ago, when she lost to Sarkozy. Moroever, Mme Trierweiler has comitted in the very first weeks of Hollande's presidency and political mistake which has caused her rejection among the majority of the French. She had indeed sent a tweet encouraging the candidate woh was opposed to Mme Royal, ex-wife of the president - appearing by this act as a jealous and vindicative woman, who let her political judgement being influenced by her feelings - and spilled it out in public. Also, she gets right now a range of financial advantages from her position as First Lady, while she is not the wife of François Hollande and continues to work. Of course, while she is his official companion, she and her children also get personal protection. So, many people have this gut reaction: now she gets some taste of her own medicine (as she had been the mistress breaking up the marriage Hollande/Royal).

Second thing is the media treatment of DSK affair. When Strauss-Kahn, the other potential socialist candidate for presidency got arrested with charges of rape in NYC, it appeared that the media in France had known for a while that his behaviour towards women and his sexual appetite had been problematic beforehand, but had not talked about it - for respect of his private life. Now, of course, they don't want to face the same accusation.

Hollande is afacing a historical low in popularity. One of the reasons is his lack of charisma. In this situation, the ability to seduce a younger and pretty woman may seem to some French like an affirmation of some kind of charisma. His popularity is still the lowest ever registered for a president.

Finally, Id like to add that being a good husband is for me not a qualification to be a good politician. JFK had one if not several mistresses. Mandela was an adulterer on his first wife. Even Angela Merkel has divorced from her first husband... But now, of course, this may come from the fact that as you know, I have been an adulterer in my life too. I don't think it shows that a person is unable of morality or of a good judgement in politics. But then, probably I am biased. And I am living, after all, in the French speaking world, even if not in France.

Sorry for the length of this post.

[anthriel]

Interesting post, Nin.

I have to admit that reading all this makes me wonder why people in cultures like this even bother to get married at all. The legitimacy of the children doesn't seem to be a hindrance... if I'm reading your notes about the "old traditions" in France and the French succession laws. If I'm understanding what you write, the sons that they absolutely had to father did not need to come from their legitimate wives.

This was not the case in old English royalty succession laws, at least at the time of Henry VIII. A couple of women could have kept their heads if this were true for them.

But really, if the vow of fidelity is rather lightly held, and there is no need for legitimate offspring, why bother to be married at all? Back in the day it had to do with creating allies and brokering power, a goal which has NEVER changed. Now, I'm not sure marriage is typically used for such things.

Just makes me wonder.

That...and I also get the feeling that Michelle would kick his a** all over the White House if he stepped out of line in that regard.

I just saw this. I got myself smacked down on this board for a similar comment, Jewel. Just sayin'!

[Nin]

Interesting post, Nin.The legitimacy of the children doesn't seem to be a hindrance... if I'm reading your notes about the "old traditions" in France and the French succession laws. If I'm understanding what you write, the sons that they absolutely had to father did not need to come from their legitimate wives.

Oh, no, the children had to be legitimate, of course. This seemed evident to me in a catholic country.

But only legitimate sons mattered. Once the queen had born a living son, her presence was useless and unlike in other succession laws, in France if no son was born to the king, his daughter could never inherit the throne. It was impossible. While male predominance in title's inheritage was normal all over Europe, a daughter could inherit the title if no son was born. But not under French law. If a wife did not give the king a son, she would at some point forced to resign from the marriage. This had been discussed for Marie-Antoinette who had not been pregnant until the seventh year of her marriage - and then born a daughter of all things! There has been only one woman in a major political position in France since the war, prime minister Edith Cresson. In a country where a great majority of women work and the mother role is not glorified - it is astonishing.

Maybe it's far fetched too. But the tradition of a mistress goes right through from royalty to presidency among French politicians with very few exceptions, among which is not the least Charles de Gaulle.

[JewelSong]

Fascinating post, Nin

That...and I also get the feeling that Michelle would kick his [Obama's] a** all over the White House if he stepped out of line in that regard.

I just saw this. I got myself smacked down on this board for a similar comment, Jewel. Just sayin'!

I don't know why you would be "smacked down" for saying something like this. I think men who are serial "cheaters" - especially men in power - assume that their wives will not do anything too drastic to them. That they have their wife's tacit "approval" as it were. They are often wrong, but that is their assumption.

Clinton was a known womanizer. Hillary married him anyway and she knew he continued his affairs. She blew her top at the Monica Lewinsky bro-ha-ha but in my opinion, that was more because he had damaged him (and her) politically.) Jackie was apparently prepared to divorce JFK due to his constant screwing around, but then they had that little baby who died and it brought them closer together again for a time - who knows what she would have done had JFK lived. FDR apparently had a number of affairs, including long-time thing with his wife's secretary. Eleanor did not divorce him, but they lived separate lives up to his death. She was not with him when he died.

I think President Obama truly loves his wife and is not the kind of man prone to "cheating." I also think Michelle would not take any kind of dalliance on his part very well and would - well, kick his a** all over the White House. And I bet he knows it, too.

[anthriel]

I think perhaps you just said it better than I did. I think my comment may have looked like a dig on a hen-pecked husband; I said something like Obama might be too scared of what Michelle would do to try such a thing, which really isn't any different in intent from what you wrote, but I meant it slightly as a joke and maybe that was the issue.

"Smackin'" is probably too strong a description... the comment I got in response for my "funny" comment (I do think there was a winky involved)was something like Obama loved his wife, and perhaps that was the reason for his loyalty. My joke looked a little lame after that comment, and I felt properly chagrined for having made mine.

I'm glad I was called out on my remark, but it did seem odd that you were not called on the same sort of thought. Maybe it was just that different in tone and perceived intent.


FWIW, I agree with you.

[anthriel]

Interesting post, Nin.The legitimacy of the children doesn't seem to be a hindrance... if I'm reading your notes about the "old traditions" in France and the French succession laws. If I'm understanding what you write, the sons that they absolutely had to father did not need to come from their legitimate wives.

Oh, no, the children had to be legitimate, of course. This seemed evident to me in a catholic country.

Oh, I'm sorry. It wasn't evident to me, because you wrote:

Having a mistress is a very old tradition in France, still coming in fact from royalty, and its origin lies partially in the French succession laws: the French king needed a son. A daughter could not and under no circumstances inherit the throne.

...where it looked like French kings had mistresses to make sure they had a son, even if their wife did not bear them one. That was the usefulness of a mistress, so I thought from your writing, but the son of a mistress would not be legitimate. Hence my assumption. So when you then wrote:

If a wife did not give the king a son, she would at some point forced to resign from the marriage.

... it made more sense.


This is reminiscent of English history, then. Poor Catherine of Aragon was very much forced to "resign" because she never produced a male heir (who lived for any length of time, anyway) for Henry VIII.

[axordil]

Ultimately a head of state's affairs are dangerous for reasons distinct from any moral issues one might attach to them (or not): they represent a potential vulnerability, the importance of which varies by the culture. In France, as noted, Hollande's popularity improved a tick or two...in the US, as we've seen, the likely outcome is messier.

[Túrin Turambar]

Great post, Nin!

I understand that Charles de Gaulle was the last French President who was not known to have one or more mistresses.

I wonder whether there isn’t some sort of Catholic v Protestant divide on this issue – the French and Italians seem more relaxed about infidelity in their leaders than the Anglo-Saxons in Britain and North America. Protestants seem to have always demanded more austerity from their leaders than Catholics. See the rejection of anything ornate by the German Junker class, or the low-key nature of the monarchies of northern Europe. But that may be coincidence – I doubt the Irish position is more similar to the French than it is to the British.

On another note, while the behaviour of Henry VIII and his associates seems reprehensible to us now, it’s worth noting that their desire for a male heir was not simply personal. England prior to the reign of Henry’s father had been torn by a protracted and destructive civil war between rival claimants to the throne. Henry VII had seized the crown through victory in battle (literally) and he and his son had managed to bring about a measure of stability and progress, restoring the kingdom’s strength and the balance of its treasury. Their underlying fear was that, if Henry died without an undisputed heir, the Wars of the Roses would be repeated.

[anthriel]

There were plenty of undisputed heirs on the York side, and the War of the Roses hummed along just fine.

The Lancaster side was a little bit more lean on the undisputed heir line... Henry VII's royal blood was just a dollop on his mother's side. And yet the Lancasters won the day.

But yes, I understand Henry VIII wanted a male heir to take the throne. He actually had one. But it was his female child who actually sat the throne for something like 40 years.

Funny ol' world, innit?

[Frelga]

I also wondered about this being a Catholic vs. Protestant distinction. Could it be that where divorce is difficult or impossible to obtain, adultery becomes the way to marital satisfaction? And is divorce really so much worse than adultery, which after all breaks one of Ten Commandments (although in that context it only applies to a relationship with a married woman)?

[Túrin Turambar]

There were plenty of undisputed heirs on the York side, and the War of the Roses hummed along just fine.

If there were plenty of heirs none of them could be undisputed, which was the problem .

In all seriousness, the Lancastrian side actually had the Prince of Wales until he was killed in 1471, at which point the wars effectively ended save for the final Tudor campaign in 1483. The whole 1455-1471 imbroglio was what the Tudors were subsequently trying to avoid.

[Nin]

Great post, Nin!

I understand that Charles de Gaulle was the last French President who was not known to have one or more mistresses.

Thank you! Well, Sarkozy too: he married Carla Bruni very quickly (to avoid her the statues of a mistress, precisely).

On the catholic vs protestant issue: Maybe. I tend to consider that adultery (from the men's side!) only becomes problematic if you think of marriage as a romantic (or religious) commitment. As long as marriage is mainly an economic or dynastic contract, men can be adulterous. And for most of history and many people that was the purpose of marriage: holding wealth or territory together.

Female adultery is far more dangerous because it questions the identity of the potenial father of a child. So, I would say, the consideration of adultery depends on the expectations on marriage.