So the silliness of the John Edwards trial is over and what have we learned?
1.That a Bush appointed US attorney in North Carolina wanted to make a name for himself in order to run as a Republican for congress, so he decided to indict John Edwards for the crime of CAD (Campaigning as a Democrat—yes that’s a crime in Republican circles, just ask former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman)
2. That John Edwards did not corruptly sell his positions on issues to campaign contributors.
3. That John Edwards did not corruptly sell jobs/positions/ambassadorships during his campaign.
4. That John Edwards had sex with more than one woman during his 30 year marriage.
Let’s not kid ourselves, issues #1 and 4 were really all this trial was ever about.
What else do we know about John Edwards as of 2004?
1. He did not favor Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy.
2. Edwards favored economic and social programs that would help the 99% more than the top 1%
Finally, what else do we really know about John Edwards main character flaw, after all, the logic goes, if someone will lie and cheat with his wife, he will lie and cheat to the country. As much as we can all claim to prize and value marital fidelity in political leaders, it does beg the question, is there really a positive correlation between fidelity and successful leadership?
The answer, of course, is a resounding “no.”
A look at the most successful presidencies of the last 100 years Eisenhower, FDR, Clinton, reveal that our must successful presidents had mistresses. Nixon, Carter, W Bush, all widely believed to have been monogamous, and all unsuccessful presidents.
Few people want to admit this publicly, but there is actually a strong negative correlation between presidential marital fidelity and successful governance. At some level, asking a successful politician who is great at seducing people (voters) to never, well, seduce a woman, is a little like expecting Mike Tyson or any other champion prize fighter to never get in an outside-the-ring fistfight in their entire life. Sure, it’s theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.
Given this, a fair minded person has to conclude that the country would have been far better off if John Edwards had beaten George W Bush for President in 2004 (assuming Edwards and not Kerry had won the nomination). President Edwards would not have plunged the country into massive debt. President Edwards would not have started or escalated unpopular wars. President Edwards would not have implemented economic policies that further widened the gap between rich and poor.
Would President Edwards have been the perfect moral leader? While I don’t often agree with conservatives, I do agree with them when they proclaim it is a problem for people to look for government to solve all their problems. I don’t need a president to be my role model on how to be a husband or a father. I had my own father who did quite fine in that department. It’s about time the American public, especially conservatives, grew up and started demanding governing competence in presidential candidates instead of imposing the asinine test of “whatever candidate has had sex with the fewest people in his/her life can/should be President.”
And there needs to be a little more consistency in the whole sinning department. According to most religions, infidelity is clearly sin, but so is gluttony. Can there be any doubt that Chris Christie commits the sin of gluttony more often and with greater relish than John Edwards ever committed the sin of infidelity? And yet nobody says Christie isn’t morally fit to run for high office. It’s time to eliminate the double standard.