Over at Babalu Blog, George Moneo posted a link to an interesting article by C.D. Ginsburg at The American Thinker bemoaning the implosion of Herman Cain’s campaign and suggesting that if Cain would have come clean about his alleged extramarital affairs and vowed to never commit such acts in the White House, he could have continued his run. He then goes on to cite examples of other high-profile politicians who have cheated on their wives (Clinton, Kennedy, Edwards, Gingrich) and who supposedly got away with it while Cain was sunk.
What if tomorrow Herman swore to never commit such an act in the White House, and to step down if he were ever to be caught? How about now, can he now still run and be president?
It seems to me it would be better than what many of his Democratic predecessors have done or would do. Bill Clinton was getting pleasured under the presidential desk while Kennedy was most likely on top of it. And let’s not even talk about Edwards’ love child. But Cain’s not even in the White House or a nominee. Newt Gingrich now continues to be trumpeted as the new front runner, taking the charge in Cain’s disgrace despite his own multiple affairs and wives. But he’s a Catholic now, so he would never do those things, right?
I’ll say this: if Cain would have publicly acknowledged his affairs (assuming they are valid, of course), apologized to those he hurt, genuinely seek forgiveness and vow to not do it again, case closed in my book. People want to focus on issues and leave a candidate’s private life just that – private. Apologizing for personal missteps, especially those such as marital infidelity that hurts many people and exposes serious character flaws, is an important reflection on a person’s character that typically reveals itself in other important issues, those that affect all of us. In other words, if you mess up, apologize, genuinely seek forgiveness, vow to correct your behavior, many if not most “Christian conservatives” (a target of Ginsburg’s final salvo) would be willing to forgive. At least I can speak for myself here but I’m sure I’m far from alone.
Newt Gingrich has publicly stated his regret for his past extramarital affairs. Most importantly, he asked for and received forgiveness from his Creator through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (a wonderful blessing of the Catholic Church). No, it’s not a guarantee and it doesn’t shield Gingrich from screwing up again. What it DOES show is a serious, humble and grace-filled commitment to not go down that road again. A true reflection of character, IMO.
Which leads me to Ginsburg’s final point:
The crux of the problem is that Herman Cain sold himself to the public as a good God fearing man. If you really want to start winning elections — and Christians listen up because you aren’t the only conservatives that exist — stop selling yourself as the picture of morality! You’re not, so sell yourself on your actions, your plans, and your system. Don’t act as if you live more morally than anyone because that destroys you every time. Stop trying to get the vote from those whose religions determine their political decision making. And, in turn, stop letting your religion determine your vote, because the bad news is politicians are on to you and don’t mind lying about their morality to your face.
The truth is even Herman Cain thinks he knows better than you and if any of them, especially the Right told you the truth, you’d see that unlike our Founders, none of them are looking to expand YOUR power over government whether it be federal, state, or local.
Unless you can recognize that actions like Cain’s are up to and between him, any adult, and his maker, then you are going to be let down and constantly deceived. If this is your way, please look for a new party, because here in the Republic we only care that you’ll defend the Constitution. Outside of that, mind your own business and we’ll mind ours.
As far as religion guiding political decisions, if one’s religious formation is properly guided and grounded, there’s no need to worry. If not, that’s another story (i.e., Pelosi, Biden on abortion). Decent and pious people can honestly disagree on certain issues, but to imply, as Ginsburg does, that basing one’s political decisions on their religious beliefs is an exercise in futility goes against the spirit of the Constitution which was pithily and eloquently stated by our second president, John Adams:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 4 Comments »
