Sex Affairs and Public Figures

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

2.) For whatever combination of reasons, it is a Very Big Deal for an American politician to have an affair.

and Thomas' question was : why?

It's a very American thing, and it's quite a recent thing, so ... why?

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

sozobe wrote:
2.) For whatever combination of reasons, it is a Very Big Deal for an American politician to have an affair.

and Thomas' question was : why?

It's a very American thing, and it's quite a recent thing, so ... why?

Aaaah!

I was wondering that!

Is that because the media used to maintain silence?

Or because the reaction was different?

0 Replies

its because americans judge harshly and without reason.

seriously, not all but the majority of the morons..

they jump on any excuse to attack someones character.

0 Replies

I agree it's an interesting question, and I don't really know the answer.

Thomas gave a pretty thorough survey of various reactions in his opening post and I noticed that the "wow, that was dumb" reaction was missing, so I mentioned that since it's the largest component of my own (not that strong) reaction. That's a lot of what I'm seeing, in terms of various "fusses" being made. Not the only one, to be sure, but definitely a big component.

When I think about "why," the first thing that comes to mind is "character." That seems like a uniquely American preoccupation when it comes to public figures. I think other cultures are more likely to judge a politician on what laws he or she passes, what effect he or she has on society, what he or she does in the capacity of politician.

If that's true (it's a spare though, I dunno if it is), the question is still WHY is that a uniquely American preoccupation? Maybe something to do with frontier, pioneers, Horatio Alger -- the American story, the American narrative, who we think we are as a people. Our character. I think politicians are supposed to demonstrate a certain fundamentally American character... blame Teddy Roosevelt, blame JFK, blame MLK even ("not by the color of their skin but the content of their character").

And if that general premise is true -- that character is uniquely important -- then it's hard to draw lines. He's a good guy -- except that he's a louse to his wife. (As mentioned here, I think a guy could be considered both basically good and lousy to his wife more easily in the recent past than now.) Vs. (non-American view): He's an effective politician. He gets stuff done. (Who cares what he's doing in his private life, it's not pertinent to his job.)

0 Replies

I don't buy that it's recent. Some of the exaggerated stridency re the scandal of it all re sexual liaisons is recent re my long lifetime but I'm sure at least my mother wouldn't have voted for her choices had she known, say, about Eisenhower.

I was raised in a moral fortress that I've clawed my way, figuratively, to gain a little perspective on. In my case that was a boston/california irish catholic fortress, with slightly different windows outside re mother and father. But from my anecdotal experience of conversations with people of other backgrounds in the US, a huge proportion take infidelity in others, not to mention spouses, as gut sockingly personal, brain-inflaming in a way that even some war atrocities don't get to.

I wasn't kidding when I said puritan background - though I don't mean that as all about the historic group of puritans.

Licentiousness, oh so attractive to the strict.. which is why one often finds the headlines on this stuff peopled by the apparent and fairly loud righteous.

Media have some fault, but the media is pretty much a response group to what sells.

0 Replies

Just read your post on character, Sozobe. Not arguing with that, makes sense.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Media have some fault, but the media is pretty much a response group to what sells.

ok, so why are Americans buying something different?

as mushypancakes posted earlier, it'd be hard for a paper here to get anyone to care about what politicians do in their personal lives ... we've got a reasonable number of 'out' politicians, their affairs are occasionally noted in passing - but not much cared about. Unusual family situations might get coverage, but in a sorta good way. The politician who was part of an assisted suicide was very much seen as a good guy.

It's like living on a different planet, not on the same continent, when I watch American news.

I just about blew a gasket yesterday when Wolf Blitzer was droning on and on and on and on and on about Edwards. What about people being killed in Georgia? Why didn't that catch the American public/media's eye/ear?

Seems perverse to me.

0 Replies

Well, me too, and I'm fully american, in the US sense.

Just my point re something like war versus marital scandal re hitting americans in the gut.

0 Replies

remember the guy who was in the airport bathroom?

hilarious. poor guy his reputation is probablly smashed to bits.

i dont even remember his name or where he was from.

0 Replies

People generalize about americans all the time, but as most of you know, we vary. I've had fluffed feathers sometimes as we are continually taken as a big lump, or so it seems, but I understand we can seem that way, and given this kind of effect, it is hard to argue.

I think some of it has to do with family teaching and schooling but since I wasn't raised in schools in italy or canada or brazil or japan (on my own I don't usually capitalize countries or languages when writing, though I figure I'm supposed to) I can't 'testify' to how they differ, though I suspect they do. That early teaching has a primary effect, natch.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

ossobuco wrote:
Media have some fault, but the media is pretty much a response group to what sells.

ok, so why are Americans buying something different?

as mushypancakes posted earlier, it'd be hard for a paper here to get anyone to care about what politicians do in their personal lives ... we've got a reasonable number of 'out' politicians, their affairs are occasionally noted in passing - but not much cared about. Unusual family situations might get coverage, but in a sorta good way. The politician who was part of an assisted suicide was very much seen as a good guy.

It's like living on a different planet, not on the same continent, when I watch American news.

I just about blew a gasket yesterday when Wolf Blitzer was droning on and on and on and on and on about Edwards. What about people being killed in Georgia? Why didn't that catch the American public/media's eye/ear?

Seems perverse to me.

That's how I feel too.

And if it IS about character - maybe the mainstream consciousness of what character entails is two totally different things from one side of the border to the next?

I care about character in a politician. I know plenty of other people who do.

It's just that the element of who-you-screw, sexual orientation, family arrangements and the like don't come into play in my own estimation of it (more like a footnote) in a politician. I almost expect there to be some deviancy in a politician privately - but that's private matters.

What I'm interested in is what their character is on the bigger front. Giving attention your opponents sex life seems almost decadent. Aren't there other things you should be paying attention to and talking about, doing?

0 Replies

Ogionik, of course we remember. That's been part of my point, re the dichotomy between the righteous in appearance and in so-called unrighteousness in action. In his case there was some law crossed, I forget what. But the glee was re his hypocrisy. But the hypocrisy was borne from the stricture re human interactions, and the extreme railing against some of them. Kind of a feed back inhibition culture.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Kind of a feed back inhibition culture.

That's interesting.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I agree it's an interesting question, and I don't really know the answer.

Thomas gave a pretty thorough survey of various reactions in his opening post and I noticed that the "wow, that was dumb" reaction was missing, so I mentioned that since it's the largest component of my own (not that strong) reaction. That's a lot of what I'm seeing, in terms of various "fusses" being made. Not the only one, to be sure, but definitely a big component.

When I think about "why," the first thing that comes to mind is "character." That seems like a uniquely American preoccupation when it comes to public figures. I think other cultures are more likely to judge a politician on what laws he or she passes, what effect he or she has on society, what he or she does in the capacity of politician.

If that's true (it's a spare though, I dunno if it is), the question is still WHY is that a uniquely American preoccupation? Maybe something to do with frontier, pioneers, Horatio Alger -- the American story, the American narrative, who we think we are as a people. Our character. I think politicians are supposed to demonstrate a certain fundamentally American character... blame Teddy Roosevelt, blame JFK, blame MLK even ("not by the color of their skin but the content of their character").

And if that general premise is true -- that character is uniquely important -- then it's hard to draw lines. He's a good guy -- except that he's a louse to his wife. (As mentioned here, I think a guy could be considered both basically good and lousy to his wife more easily in the recent past than now.) Vs. (non-American view): He's an effective politician. He gets stuff done. (Who cares what he's doing in his private life, it's not pertinent to his job.)

Or...is it just a factor of how powerful the christian right is, and, as far as I can see has always been, in determining the nature of acceptable public personae in the USA?

0 Replies

That's the one thing I remember all these years later about biochemistry.. kind of like I remember two or three things about algebra, and I've managed to make them analogies in my mind for matters in every day life..

0 Replies

Or Protestantism?

I mean, Oz has always had wowsers, and there has historically been less free debate. art etc in Oz...but we have been pretty tolerant..at least since I can recall...of politicians' foibles.

But the wowsers have had limtied power.

Mind you...there's a lot of bullshite re "family values" being bandied about here, now.

Grrrr.

0 Replies

Not all fundamentalists are of a piece, as I understand it. Not to speak for them, but they aren't a megalith, exactly. There has been a rather vocal bunch in the last, what number of years - feels like 30 or 40, and that may be part of the seeming new change, since they made some progress into governmental, ah, codes.

It's deeper than that, however poorly I address it.

And, Thomas, you know a goodly gaggle of great folks.

0 Replies

We (Germany) used to have a politician who was caught with some
hookers in NYC. The only reason it became public was that the girls of the
night had stolen his wallet. Cool

He was married with 3 kids and I am sure his wife did not appreciate
his escapades. Nonetheless, he was a brilliant politician (the Munich airport
is named after him), and he remained a brilliant politician in office.

The marriage of John and Elisabeth Edwards is a private affair and it
should remain as such. Concerning his extramarital affair(s), his wife will have to deal with it, not the rest of the country! Apparently Elisabeth is far more advanced than the American public as she has coped with it and her
husband is forgiven.

0 Replies

But, CJ, he didn't have to pay off the hookers, because, despite the fluff, he could continue in office doing appaarently well for his country. It's our whole wacko, aggggggh, puritanism that is part of our askewness.

0 Replies

Sex Affairs and Public Figures

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know