George Will says Barack Obama reminds him of Fred Astaire in that he’s the coolest guy in the room and all eyes turn in his direction when he enters. But would you turn over your nuclear arsenal to Fred Astaire without knowing more about the character of the man? Nor with Obama.
My wife and I disagree about John Edwards.
When the news broke Friday about his affair with a woman who worked on his campaign and the baby who may or may not be his, Margaret commented that “all men are naturally that way.” My first impulse was to utter, “Thanks a lot,” but what I said was, “Edwards is beautiful to look at, fabulously wealthy, and was potentially the president of the United States. Don’t you know a lot of women threw themselves at him.”
If a certain percentage of women come on to pastors–and, as my seminary prof Dr. James Taylor warned in the mid-1960s, “It will happen to every one of you in this room,” and he added, “Even you, McKeever,” to laughter from the rest of the class–then you know that a guy like John Edwards has been in the crosshairs of many a woman.
That is not to make a judgement on the woman in the news said to be his paramour.
I found it overwhelmingly sad that every television news show felt an obligation to devote hours to a) a report on Edwards’ affair, b) details on what had occurred, and c) speculation about how Elizabeth Edwards took the news and what this means for their family.
Welcome to the “National-Enquirer-ization” of our culture. Nothing is off limits; we no longer know any shame.
Oh, John Edwards is ashamed. But it’s the media’s constant hammering on what he did that strikes me as shameful. To my knowledge, at no time had he presented himself as beyond sin or without fault. We knew the man was fallible and capable of such sin, because–agreeing with my wife now–we’re all that way, capable of the worst moral failures.
Evidently, some time recently, the Times-Picayune ran an editorial cartoon from Walt Handelsman, former cartoonist for the T-P and ever since with Newsday out of Long Island, in which he caricatured John McCain’s twisted smile in some way. In going through all the newspapers I missed for nearly two weeks of vacation travel, I came across this letter to the editor from Tuesday, July 29.
“Walt Handelsman’s caricature of a ‘scowling’ Sen. John McCain was a real thigh-slapper.”
“I was a member of the U. S. Navy medical team in Pensacola, FL, that annually examined repatriated POWs. I can tell you that being regularly beaten in the face and teeth with fists, clubs, rifle butts, etc., will definitely ruin your smile, and can certainly damage facial muscles enough to leave a permanent scowl.”
“Have a good laugh. Thousands of U.S. combat veterans don’t think it’s so funny.”
The letter was signed: “Capt. Richard P. Vidacovich, M.D., Medical Corps, U.S. Navy (Retired), Slidell.”
Above that one was a letter concerning a divisive subject around here, whether President Bush should pardon former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards, serving a sentence in a federal penitentiary for racketeering. Most–but not all–residents of this state pin much of the blame for Louisiana’s reputation for crooked politics on Edwin Edwards. He was–like Mr. Astaire–the coolest of the cool, always smart and sassy, but unlike the dancer, the kind who could smile at you and utter sweet nothings while emptying your billfold and swiping your child’s lunch.
The letter was one of those that leaves the reader utterly speechless.
“I also believe that former Gov. Edwin Edwards has been punished enough. He should be released to be with his family. At his age, who can he hurt?”
“To me, he is the best governor Louisiana ever had. I pray to God each night for his release. Hopefully President Bush will release him. After all, he’ll be 81 in August.”
It was signed by a woman in Metairie.
The image that comes to my mind is of Jim and Tammy Bakker after their fall from the lofty position a gullible national audience had accorded them. We were living in Charlotte at the time, and I recall that even as each day’s news brought more revelations of their high-handed living style from contributions and various shenanigans when they thought no one was looking, unthinking supporters were already erecting billboards on the interstate proclaiming in huge letters, ‘FORGIVEN.’
The neighborhood section of the Times-Picayune ran a call-in poll last week on whether Bush should pardon Governor Edwards. Almost 500 callers said “no” and something over 300 said, “yes.”
Occasionally pardon-supporters accuse the rest of us of a lack of mercy. That’s a serious charge against anyone who tries to live as Christ taught. We respond that our job is to balance mercy with justice, doing the right thing for whatever the occasion needs. As with a right-thinking magistrate sitting on the bench in a court of law, sometimes you lean in one direction, sometimes the other, depending on the situation.
There are those among us who believe that a leader’s personal, private life has no bearing on the quality of public leadership he provides. They cite JFK, FDR, and MLK as examples.
The only way–to my thinking–to agree with that is to accept that the world these leaders gave us is wonderful in every way, the best of all possible outcomes, and thus to conclude that their leadership was indeed unaffected by their private lives.
I’m not ready to sign off on that yet.
Even so, I’m not one who believes that our political leaders have to be qualified to pastor our churches. We’re not electing a spiritual adviser, not choosing a pope, not voting on a father confessor. A politician lives in a cruel world, surrounded by a mixture of some of the nicest and most brutal people on the planet. He survives this jungle with scars a-plenty, and rarely without having fallen in one way or the other, if the truth be known.
Choosing a leader for a local church is a scary decision. Choosing a leader for the free world is nightmarish. In some respects, both are crap-shoots.
In the final analysis, they each come down to one word: character.
Ignore the policy statements each politician hands out. Overlook most of the stuff they utter in debates. Look for the character.
And pray for wisdom to know it when you find it. It will not be lingering on the surface, readily obvious to all who enter the room. You will recognize it by how the candidate treats his wife, the way he reacts when attacked, and whether he knows how to admit a mistake and apologize.
Pray for wisdom for yourself and intelligent discernment for your fellow voters.
The problem with the John Edwards story is the same as the Bill Clinton issue, whatever he got he brought on himself. Neither was the victim of a “right wing conspiracy” as Clinton supporters liked to claim, both were victims of their own arrogance that they could get away with whatever they wanted because of who they were. We all fall short, every day. The difference is that most of us have not chosen a life that will constantly put us in the spotlight. In the case of John Edwards he was in a presidential campaign, publicly saying he would be the “moral” leader that we needed and smiling as he stood by his wife, a cancer victim. In this case I have to go with those who believe that Character does matter in who we select for our leaders. I don’t expect them to be perfect, there was only one Perfect. What I do expect is that someone who is hoping to be President of the United States is not so stupid as to believe they can get away with whatever they want and that it will have no impact on their following decisions as they try to first hide and lie then cover-up and finally admit and blame “tabloid trash”.
As for his family, I do feel for them and hope that the story will die down. My guess is that it will be a very short-lived story anyway as Edwards is not a politician of any real influence at this point and the media will be moving on to the next scandal, the Olympics and the coming Presidential Conventions. The story may get a little press if Edwards is asked to speak that Democratic convention but other than that it should be gone in a few days.