Marital Fidelity as a Criterion for Leadership

The question in Saturday’s debate, arising from Romney and Perry ads implying a contrast with Gingrich’s past sins, is whether character in general and marital fidelity in particular should weigh heavily in the process of vetting the Republican candidate. Perry argued that if a man cheats on his wife, he’s all the more likely to cheat on his business partner, implying an analogous relationship between someone holding elected office and those who elected him. Santorum affirmed that marital fidelity is an important consideration, but not necessarily one that might disqualify a candidate.

I think the most important aspect of this is that we want our president to be someone who can be upheld as a role model, and not an object of derision.

Interestingly, the Bible addresses a comparable situation pertaining to the choice of church leaders. Paul’s language of “a husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:?) has been taken to disqualify absolutely any divorced person, although in context, it is probably best understood as “not a womanizer,” rather than absolutely. This qualification arises from the principle that if people cannot manage their own household, how can they be trusted to manage the household of God (i.e., the local church)? One could say the same thing in regard to a president’s management of national affairs.

The principle is a principle, and not an absolute, and most Evangelicals understood this in regard to President Reagan, whom they did not impugn for his previous divorce, in part because they saw his long-time fidelity to Nancy.

Gingrich, however, is no Ronald Reagan, for Gingrich’s infidelity and three marriages have been rather public and rather recent. Divorce and infidelity are not unpardonable sins, and I think that people in such situations can regain their reputation. However, it does not happen over night. In the case of choosing church leaders, new converts are not to be placed in leadership, but must be proven first; so should it be with those whose reputation has been tarnished through marital infidelity and going from one spouse to another and to another.

Here’s why it matters.

It was Gingrich’s House that impeached Clinton for high crimes and misdemeanors, and it was Gingrich’s House Managers who prosecuted the case before the Senate. It has been said that Clinton and Gingrich were in a stare-down, but that Gingrich was the first to blink. It was during this time that Gingrich’s infidelity was secretly in full gear. It has been suggested that Clinton operatives discovered the secret, and that Gingrich blinked in order to preserve his secret.

I do not know the historicity of this. Let us assume only that it is just a tale, but one that is instructive. The lesson to be learned is that character matters, for indiscretions whose secrecy is valued can be converted into capital that results in political manipulation. In extreme cases, scenarios can be envisioned of foreign governments spying on presidents of weak-character, and using personal indiscretions as blackmail to manipulate U.S. foreign policy.

While a politician’s failure to manage his own house may not be the decisive factor in one’s choice of candidates, it matters at least a little. In light of the importance of family to the fabric of American society, we should choose leaders who are beyond reproach in regard to managing their own family affairs.