I was feeling a little frivolous and cheeky over the weekend, and wrote an article for American Thinker. Here’s the start:
It was only a matter of time before Democratic politicians (as opposed to just late night talk show hosts) began commenting on the fact that the leading Republican candidates have an awful lot of ex-wives floating around. Although he’s carefully vague, one has to assume that, when Howard Dean said of Rudy Giuliani that “His personal life is a serious problem for him,” he was talking about Giuliani’s two ex-wives (not to mention his sordid divorce so that he could marry his current wife), his third wife’s ex-husbands, and his son’s disdain for the whole marriage-go-round.
Many of the other Republican candidates don’t look so good either when it comes to managing their private lives. John McCain is on wife number two and may have started his relationship with her while still married to wife number one (although since his first wife and children have forgiven him, surely we should too). Fred Thompson is likewise on wife number two, and many people will either be envious of or put off by the fact that his second wife is significantly younger than he is. Newt Gingrich also boasts a spotty marital history, marred by the popular (but untrue) belief that he served divorce papers on his first wife while she was hospitalized for cancer treatments. And as with Thompson, Gingrich’s current wife (his third) is a much younger woman. Of the leading names on the Republican side, only Mitt Romney has a clean marital record, having been married to the same woman for 38 years (a commitment that may well have been helped by the fact that, just as he is an extremely handsome man, so too is his wife a very beautiful woman).
In striking contrast to the Republicans, the Democratic frontrunners can boast that they have many fewer marriages between them. Hillary Clinton’s marriage, despite its manifest peculiarities, has lasted 32 years. One can wonder what kept her with a compulsive womanizer for so long, but the fact is that she took her marriage vows seriously, and she and Bill are still together. Barack Obama also has a good track record (aided perhaps by the fact that he’s younger than the other candidates, so hasn’t had as much time to get into trouble). He and his wife have been together 15 years. John Edwards, he of the beautiful hair, has been married to Elizabeth for 30 years. Al Gore and Tipper have been married 37 years.
Usually, when faced with these numbers (both years of marriage and number of spouses), the discussion wanders off into rants about hypocrisy. As in “It’s hypocritical for conservatives to divorce.” Or, “It’s hypocritical for a feminist such as Hillary to put up with a rampant womanizer.” As for the first argument, I don’t know that any of these much-married conservative candidates have ever advocated the end of divorce, and I’m sure all would agree, with themselves as terrible examples, that stable family relationships are good things. As for the second argument, Hillary’s private decisions about love, family and (one assumes) political expediency are hers alone, and should not be used against her in a hypocrisy argument. As the Victorians used to say, “Who knows the mysteries of the human heart?”
I actually would approach this whole marriage thing another way, and (unsurprisingly to those who know my biases) it’s a way that favors the Democrats as spouses, and the Republicans as leaders.
The rest is here.
Filed under: Presidential elections
[...] [Discuss this post over at the Bookworm Room…] [...]
It is extremely difficult for me to take seriously the notion that you believe physical appearance has anything to do with keeping marital commitments….yet you have written:
“(a commitment that may well have been helped by the fact that, just as he is an extremely handsome man, so too is his wife a very beautiful woman).”
If actual evidence matters, can’t we all think of MANY cases where beautiful people act like ordinary human beings and divorce? Do you really think that given some objective standard of attractiveness, there would be an inverse relationship between attractiveness and divorce?
Care to offer a few words of reflection on this?
I actually would approach this whole marriage thing another way, and (unsurprisingly to those who know my biases) it’s a way that favors the Democrats as spouses, and the Republicans as leaders.
Hey Book, you’re killing me here with that line. But that’s okay.
I don’t know what really causes such Republicans to seek younger wives and what not. I just don’t know, given I don’t know the characters of the actors. Could be a hidden desire for stay at home wives? Patriarchical? That could rub women the wrong way.
It can’t be because of communication, for certainly Newt knows how to communicate. Or maybe it is scale. The big leaders like FDR, had affairs and all kinds of weirdness in his marriage and life. Yet he was fighting Nazism up to the very end. Scale. Or maybe it is the Democrat glamour. The almost intuitive understanding by Democrat wives that scandal is bad and should be avoided.
JFK doesn’t apply to Mitt, presumably, but it seems there’s a long track record of length marriages for their party. At least the prominent leaders. But it does apply to Clinton.
Do you really think that given some objective standard of attractiveness, there would be an inverse relationship between attractiveness and divorce?
I’m just guessing as to Book’s views, but maybe she was saying that if both the spouses are attractive to each other, there would be less temptation for cheating, and thus breaking of the marriage.
Strangely, Earl, I do mean it (that spousal beauty matters) when it comes to the rarefied worlds of politicians and movie stars. For most of us, as we age, our spouses age with us, and we continue to seem them with the eyes of love. And because we’re not people of great power or wealth, we don’t have that love assaulted by beautiful young people of the opposite sex throwing themselves at us in an effort to buy into a piece of our power or wealth. You see, Kissinger got one thing right when he said (I’m quoting from memory here) “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”
For example, an ordinary looking guy like Newt who, if he were just Joe Shmo in the neighborhood, might spend his whole life with his wife, not just because he loved her, but because there were not other, better choices. Add power, though, and he would suddenly have those other, better choices.
For most men, I suspect that the difference between (1) a wife who is showing wrinkles, who bears the extra weight of those three pregnancies, who knows way too much about him as a callow young man, and who doesn’t hold him in any great esteem for that same reason, and (2) a svelte, taut, beautiful, worshipful young woman is kind of a no-brainer. Unless they’re men have tremendous moral rectitude or a deep and abiding love for their aging wife, history shows over and over again that the aging wife is not in a good negotiating position. Trophy wives, in other words, are as old as time.
Aside from the fact that I suspect Romney is a devout man who believes strongly in his marriage vows, his wife’s undoubted beauty must have helped her fend off those young beauties who regularly come to challenge the wives of the rich and powerful.
Howdy Bookworm,
I’m not so sure I agree with your conclusions in this article, Book, but I concur with your observations. I agree with your observation that the qualities that make for a good husband does not necessarily translate into qualities that make for good national leaders. However, I’m not so sure that long marriages, exemplified by the male Democratic candidates, necessarily means marital bliss or means anything other than that the marriages have lasted a long time.
Couples stay together for many reasons and some of them aren’t very good. A good number of couples stay together because of money. Others stay out of co-dependency. The fact that marriages last for a long time doesn’t mean one party or both parties aren’t absolute cads in their relationship. I’ve observed marriages where the women would stay with the man because of monetary reasons, despite his mistreatment. I’ve observed men remaining with shrieking women because he didn’t want to be alone.
The fact is, we don’t know what goes on inside a marriage. Only they do. And we certainly can’t assess a marriage by its outer appearances, especially from people whose entirely lives have been spent crafting and manipulating public opinion through their appearances. One can present a refined, educated, virtuous life with every hair in place to the public and then come home and have a sordid, licentious, unscrupulous private life.
As far as I’m concerned for this presidential race, the main question a voter should entertain is: Who do you trust?
If a man’s character is solid and trusted, you can rely on his judgment because, in the end, sound judgment IS the job of the Presidency.
I’m not sure that bad husbands make good leaders or vice versa, but I am sure that God does not necessarily abandon a bad husband. King David. A recommended read is GOD KNOWS by Joesph Heller.
If only people were as simple and loyal as the length of a marriage implies… The length of a marriage can be based on any number of factors, up to and including the ability to tolerate the problems inherent in the relationship.
Slightly O/T anecdote. While my (then future) wife and I were at a gathering with three married couples, one of the wives expressed some concern that my lady and I were living together before marriage. I carefully pointed out to her that we had, at that time, known, loved, fought, and forgiven each other for nearly fifteen years. More importantly, we had been in a relationship (albeit often stormy and frequently separated) for longer than the three married couples in the room had known each other…COMBINED. The marriage announcement was perfectly framed by the toast given by the best man – “When Dave asked me to be best man I had to ask – haven’t you two been married for the past ten years?”
Amazingly it is our first marriage each; barring death it will likely be our last. We each had two broken engagements prior and interspersed with our extended courtship. It is likely that the friendship that carried on through the storms ended one or two of those engagements. It is likely (nope, definite in my case) that we’d have ended up together; it is lucky that there are not ex-spouses in the past. It is very lucky for one of her ex-fiances that he did not marry her; his abusive manner (and abuse of her) would have resulted in very bad things for him at my hands. As it was, he chose wisely and left before I could catch up to him (I was on another continent at the time; a friend brought me to his house from the airport to find he’d “moved quickly and left no forwarding address”. My wife still does not know I know about the situation or what I was going to do about it).
Back from my O/T rant – Good people can make bad decisions; the problem is when they fail to correct them (case in point – HRC).
SGT Dave
OK, let’s look at the record: Republican marriages – Ike and Mamie Eisenhower, Richard & Pat Nixon, Ronald and Nancy Reagan, George and Barbara Bush, George W. and Laura Bush. On the Democrat side: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry and Bess Truman, Jack and Jacquie Kennedy, Jimmah and Rosaline Carter, Bill and Hillary Clinton. With the exception of Harry and Bess, the nature of the Democrat leaders, marriages and family lives leaves me pretty cold!
I doubt there is any winning an argument on this subject, regardless of which side one takes, or the specifics over which one is arguing. The important factors are impossible to quantify.
I agree that there are different pressures in a marriage depending on the career paths of husband and/or wife. However, before I’ll accept that physical beauty is a big factor in holding even political/celebrity marriages together, I’d want to see data…… One person may find John Edwards a good-looking guy, while another does not. The same is undoubtedly true for his wife. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, someone once said….and I ask what that truth does to your speculation about the role of beauty in the longevity of a marriage.
By the way, one would expect that something similar to political/celebrity divorce rates would be going on in colleges and Universities across the country, given the immediately available stock of young and attractive people of both sexes – do you have any statistics on that subject?
My own view is that character is a much bigger factor than appearance. If one person in the relationship refuses to treat the other decently, it doesn’t matter much what s/he looks like – if the partner is a whole person, the marriage will not last. No healthy person is going to stand for being abused or neglected over the long term. Speak up, men! Would you stay with a woman who wasn’t really nice to you because she was physically attractive? Or would you prefer a plain woman who treated you as a wife should?
I think that if one partner has a bad character, or is so badly damaged that they cannot at least treat the other with decency, then the marriage will be short. And if one has no honor, and does not take the vows seriously, then the marriage really never existed – and the form will break up rather quickly as well. It is these things, far more than physical appearance (and equally hard to quantify) that determine how long a marriage lasts.
Interesting point about colleges and universities, Earl. As it happens, I know several women whose husbands — college professors all — abandoned them for nubile young students. I also know many college professors still married to their original wives. Certainly, if you watch Jay Leno, you come away with the feeling that the real problem right now is female teachers and their male students. I can’t tell if that’s happening more often than before, or if it’s just in the news more than it used to be!
I think that the point you are touching upon is that intelligence (i.e., college professors) has no correlation to character. A lot of the most brilliant academicians that I know are moral dunces. I think that there are many types of intelligence, not all related to academic proficiency. FYI – I married my wife not just because she was a knock-out, but she was also a lot smarter than me.
.
My point, such as it is, seems to be that what we’ve got so far are impressions — BW has the impression that celebrity or political marriages between two “good-looking” people (however that judgment is made – and who is going to be our judge? Bookworm?) are more likely to last than are such marriages between folks who are not both attractive. The idea being that the power of their position opens up lots of opportunities that don’t exists for the rest of us, so someone “stuck” with a spouse who isn’t a stunner (any longer?) is more likely to stray.
On the other hand, my impression is that the characters of the people involved have a lot more to do with the lasting qualities of the marriage than does the physical appearance of one or both of them.
Perhaps we could come to an agreement on the impression that people who go into show business or politics (or college teaching?) have lousier characters than the average joe or jane. That would REALLY muddy the waters, wouldn’t it?
Really, though — we have no data, and given the problems in determining who is or is not “attractive”, we’re unlikely ever to get any that will help us understand what is really going on.
It isn’t impressions, it is variables. So far the equation is incomplete. But the baseline has been established, as being the pavlovian rresponse system. If there are any kind of an instinctual or desire based effect that causes a person to look outside the marriage for what he or she wants, then the marriage goes down. This includes physical desires, needs, economic desires, as well as mental or spiritual fullfillment. How these disparate variables stack compared to each other, in terms of weighted influences, is not clear. But in aggregate, as a group, they definitely cause the majority of marriage breakups. Most of the time it isn’t cause people fall out of love, but rather you love someone else more, or love something about someone else more. Whether money, beauty, personality, family, etc.
Goes back to the whole temptation issue as a way to explain human frailty. If a person is satisfied with his marriage, then even if he is exposed to temptations, he won’t break. But if a person no longer loves his spouse, then he may still stay in the marriage, if only because he has no reason to get out of it, because he has not experienced any temptations. Not any to override his current desires, even if his desires are’t for his wife or love.
If Hillary loves politics too much and doesn’t want to be by herself or doesn’t want to have to work up a relationship with someone else that is powerful, then she just might lack a temptation to leave Bill.
We know what’s going on Earl, it just differs for every single case. But the overall trend is more or less the same. Pavlov’s research only forms the fundamental base of how to explain or predict human behavior. But this foundation easily groups together the physical desires and machinations involved in marriage breakups. Mental, spiritual, and emotional work in similar fashion, but not the same way.
If you are trying to find this “one key” attribute that is “responsible” for the marriage being what it is, you’re not going to get anywhere. But on the same level, saying there are too many factors and people don’t know because they don’t have the statistical data, doesn’t work either. Scientifically, without the statistical data on a lot of marriages and the intimate secrets of those marriages (Neo-Neocon a family therapist probably has had such records), you have to shuck inductive logic and use deductive logic. Just cause inductive logic no longer applies, doesn’t mean people are clueless permanently.
Btw, it doesn’t matter how you define beauty, because the only thing that matters in a marriage as concerning relevant factors, is whether the spouse finds the other attractive. In such cases, it is binary, either yes or no. In a 2 by 2 matrix. You don’t have to go into that field. The question of how many people have lousy or not lousy characters, and how many of them go to college compared to others, is a statistical approach that doesn’t have any scientific data to make use of. In such cases, I start from the foundation up.