Op-Ed for Political Science

Morality is "Trash," Mr. Gingrich?

Jackie Gingrich Cushman is “known for her ability to synthesize...life happenings into a unique perspective that rings with authenticity.” Apparently, she inherited this talent from her father, Newt Gingrich, for he demonstrated a true gift for it in the South Carolina debate last week; in his indignant response to the question regarding his second wife’s statement that he had asked for an “open marriage,” Gingrich deftly turned it into a diatribe against the media, the eternal scapegoat. “I am appalled,” he retaliated, “that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.” Oh, you mean morality? Of course, how dare anyone expect that of a presidential candidate. “The vicious, negative nature” of the media clearly has nothing in common with the man who left two wives with life-threatening illnesses and expected Wife #2 to accept the extra-marital relationship he’d been carrying on for six years. Of course, to err is human, but to be endlessly scrutinized by the media is presidential candidacy. Playing victim of the media was an unscrupulous way to skirt the issue, and though it may have worked for South Carolinians, Gingrich will find, to his detriment, that character does indeed matter.

But it seems he already knew that—the Gingrich Faith Leader’s Coalition declares that Gingrich “is the man who will best represent biblical principles,” and his campaign in 1978 emphasized Gingrich’s commitment to his family and family values. Two wives later, the campaign motto, “When elected, Newt will keep his family together” seems to have been trampled in his desperate scramble for power. After his first divorce, he said his ex-wife was “not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President”, and apparently his second wife didn’t fulfill his requirements either. Thankfully, in his mistress he finally found someone who shared his deep commitment to family and morality. 

For a man supposedly committed to biblical and family values, Gingrich’s anger at being questioned about the truthfulness of his request for an open marriage is surprising—wouldn’t it be a perfect opportunity to rebut the attack and stump for traditional values? But no, now a question about values is irrelevant “trash”, though Gingrich himself demanded answers to these sorts of questions when they were asked of President Clinton.

Based on Gingrich’s history and platform, questions about his personal life are not only valid but necessary—character is an integral part of leadership, and someone vying for one of the most influential leadership positions in the world had better have it. Yes, mistakes can and should be forgiven, but there are also things to be learned from evaluating someone’s mistakes, and Gingrich’s repeated acts of cruelty, selfishness and hypocrisy illustrate that he “has neither the self-discipline nor the temperament to be president.” 

 Not only do Gingrich’s indiscretions apprise us to his faults that would likely wreak havoc on the nation were he to be elected, they also pose a significant threat to the Republican campaign against Obama. Jennifer Braceras reminds that the current first family is widely regarded as “wholesome and close-knit,” and that a Republican nominee with such a broken marital history (three wives, all slightly overlapping—didn’t we think that would be an argument used against a different candidate?) will only strengthen the appeal of the Obama’s solidity.

To weaken your party’s chances next November because you refuse to admit that your sad excuse for character will work against you? That’s “as close to despicable as anything I can imagine,” Mr. Gingrich.