The Gore Split
Divorce is always a sad and solemn affair. So I wonder: Was anyone else struck by this dispatch about the Gore breakup, which would seem tounge-in-cheek except that we all know CNN is incapable of irony.
(CNN) -- Tipper Gore stood smiling in her blue coat on stage with her arms out, ready to embrace Al Gore at the Democratic National Convention a decade ago. He arrived into her arms and they locked lips for the world to see.
"The sheer carnality of the kiss -- the can't-wait-to-get-back-to-the-hotel-room urgency, the sexual electricity flowing south -- was riveting," Time magazine's Lance Morrow wrote at the time.
Now, after 40 years of a seemingly happy marriage, the couple, who once flaunted their adoration for each other on national TV, shocked the country with an unexpected announcement this week: They are splitting up.
Is it only me, or do others wonder whether these public displays of a can't-wait-to-get-back-to-the-hotel-room urgency are a parody of a healthy relationship, a kind of Seventeen magazine take on marriage. As one friend told me today, can we imagine George H. W. Bush planting a kiss of Lance Morrow carnality on Barbara Bush, to whom he has been wed lo these 65 years? And would we be alarmed or reassured if he did?
I'd more or less let it pass. Then today's Daily Beast brought a new take:
NEW YORK – Al and Tipper had a rarity in politics: a genuine partnership. Lloyd Grove reports on happier times with the couple—and what Newt Gingrich, Larry Sabato, Marty Peretz, and the pair's other friends think went wrong.
While these names might make for an entertaining panel on Jerry Seinfeld's The Marriage Ref, I'm not sure they are exactly the people whose wisdom I would seek for insight on marital bliss gone astray.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Re: The Gore Split
It ain't just you, brother. I remember thinking exactly the same thing at the time. I've been absolutely nuts about my wife for thirty years (thirty years as of last Monday, as a matter of fact!). The day I stand on stage in front of a gazillion people and kiss her in such a way that I rivet some Time magazine guy with my carnality, it'll be because I've lost my sense of where reality ends and show biz begins. But then, a man who claims the world is coming to an end because of man-made global warming may not have that good a sense of where reality ends anyway...
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
It reminds me of how ubiquitous the word "sexy" has become. It's used to describe so many things other than persons now.
I'm just thankful politicians don't give speeches with Baywatch playing behind them.
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
Daily Beast: "Al and Tipper had a rarity in politics: a genuine partnership." But was it really that rare?: The Reagans, the Bushes (Sr), the Bushes (Jr), the Cheneys.....Maybe they meant "Democratic politics".
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
Scott, that reminded me of a line fro the 2008 primary season, when one wag asked if anyone had noticed that the only one of the top Republican candidates who'd had only one wife was the Mormon.
On the Dem side, the last one I can think of was Harry and Bess.
Re: The Gore Split
I'm sure we can find examples among Republicans. But the Gores wrote a book about their relationship. And I still recall the State of the Union where Bill Clinton mouthed "I honor you" to the then-First Lady in the balcony -- which seems more a humiliation than an accolade. All I know is that if I had been guilty of what Bill had been guilty of, I wouldn't *dare* try the public I-honor-you spectacle with Mrs. M and expected to come out alive.
Re: The Gore Split
Thanks for writing this, Bill. You know, this brings up something that I haven't been able to really come to terms with. Maybe Ricochetians can help. How much should or does a personal life influence a public or professional life? Politicians, especially, want us to notice their supposedly healthy relationships (with spouses and children), and then extrapolate that they are solid citizens with solid foundations and solid support. Therefore, worthy of *our* support. But when these relationships fail, they shift tactics, and say that personal lives are "private" and have no influence on political or professional decisions or success. From our own experiences, when relationships or personal lives are falling apart or in crisis, are our professional lives also failing? Are they inexorably linked? Will Tiger Woods be as good a golfer now that he appears to have lost his wife and kids? Did Clinton lose a political step after the scandal? Is Eliot Spitzer finished? What kind of rehabilitation is legitimate? Trustworthy? What must be part of a relationship, political or otherwise, to remain powerful in the face of fame or accolades?
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
I remember thinking during the Clinton years that if a man can break his oath to his wife then he can probably break his oath of office as well.
Incidentally, another reason the faithfulness of a politician matters is because marriage and family are the foundations of any government. Marriage is the most fundamental act of society. It's in family that a person is most likely to witness and practice their highest ideals (not always the case, of course -- i've known women who were raped by their own fathers and grandfathers). It seems reasonable to expect a political leader to bear witness to the importance of familial loyalty and responsibility.
Everybody prioritizes loyalties differently, but how a person fulfills or fails to fulfill one loyalty can speak to that person's committment to other loyalties.
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
For myself, not that I am desirable alpha male-type who has to deal with throngs of pleading female fans (old guys over 50 who are not rich or famous tend to be mostly invisible), I always remember "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall." That is why I don't preen about 36 years of faithful marriage- anyone can screw up, and I 1) prefer not to set myself up, and 2) remind myself every day about the consequences of "an haughty spirit".
I do think the standard tends to be different for the Left and Right, and I wonder if it is not because the Left has made a fetish of wanting to eliminate shame from public discourse, while the Right has made a political game of pumping family values without enough of a genuine conviction behind the political words.
Hence, Barney Frank is not particularly embarrassed when his "roommate" runs the companionship business out of their apartment, Eliot Spitzer is eager to be rehabilitated by the financial reform debate, and Mark Souder resigns from office.
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
Ursula, would agree that a distinction can be made between a politician and other professionals? When my accountant or favorite golfer is going through marital problems, their jobs are not directly affected by their personal issues. The ability to calculate depreciation or chip onto the green isn't necessarily linked to a healthy personal life.
On the other hand, I remember being infuriated with Mark Sanford and his scandal. For better or worse, the personal lives of politicians are inextricably linked to the polician's ability to perform his or her job. You can't generate support for ethics reform when you have been sleeping around the governors mansion. Sanford, for instance, made the conscience and selfish decision that personal gratification outweighed the duty he owed to the people of South Carolina.
At least filing for divorce is an act of public honesty.
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
You're right, Duane, that we're all human and fail at times. One act of weakness does not necessarily reveal some greater character flaw. On the other hand, I think it's reasonable to hold leaders to a higher standard, since they have the opportunity to inspire by example. With greater power comes greater responsibility, whether that influence was sought or not. Fame is power.
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
I hear you, Aaron, and I sympathize, though most of thesed situations are characterized by initial episodes, followed by increasing boldness, not "dark night of the soul"-type remorse, until something leaks.
My concern is that we sort of prize real people, not utter phonies. I think I'd be more inclined to trust someone who addressed his issues voluntarily (um, who....? I can't remember one) rather than after he got caught (Edwards, Newt, Ensign-"Mr. Payoff", Souder, Vitter, Sanford, etc.).
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
The last straw, I suppose, was the bit about the toilet paper.
Re: The Gore Split
Pat, I understand and appreciate your distinction. I guess I am not totally convinced -- although I'd *like* to be -- that it's not possible to be smart on ethics reform, for example, if you are simultaneously deceiving your wife/husband. Perhaps such a person might actually be able to provide insight into the kinds of trickery that allows a criminal to dodge ethics laws/guidelines. For example, a reformed (or not) mobster might be the best person to advise people on how to thwart mobster activity. I guess my point is ... I'd like to say that the way one conducts one's personal life is a legitimate measure for which to judge someone's worth as a leader. However, there's no one I'd rather clean up the streets of a city -- or demand better performance from city agencies -- than Rudy Giuliani. But, his personal life ... well, I won't go there. I probably wouldn't want him as a husband or father, but I sure would want him tidying up a corrupt police force/education system. I'm just not sure I can come down on one side or another on this stuff, although I'd like to.
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
There are many qualities that make one an effective (political) leader. Among them are (1) the capacity to conceive of a vision for a better world; (2) the ability to articulate that vision persuasively; (3) the ability to conceive of concrete actions that advance the vision; and (4) the ability to take appropriate actions to advance the vision--this includes efficiency and efficacy.
None of these things is obviously determined by personal goodness, let alone marital success or failure--or lapses in fidelity.
I prefer to believe that, in our best leaders, beneath traits 1-4 above, is a baseline of fair play and ethics, maybe faith in God, etc. This would be the soil in which the useful traits grow.
But I'm not so sure it's necessary to be effective or successful.
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
Ursula Hennessey: Pat, I understand and appreciate your distinction. I guess I am not totally convinced -- although I'd *like* to be -- that it's not possible to be smart on ethics reform, for example, if you are simultaneously deceiving your wife/husband.
Ursula, I agree with the vast majority of what you say (especially regarding Giuliani, oh I wish he were President!). However I think the decision to be deceitful while in office (like Sanford or Edwards) undermines a politician by clearly demonstrating that the official is willing to lie to the public to save his or her own political career and reputation. I'm under no pretense that all politicians are noble, self-sacrificing public servants but being so clearly selfish while in office and, often going to great lengths to hide the truth, undermines the credibility necessary to govern.
That said, I don't want to say I think a politician must be a paragon of virtue. If a politician is divorced or has a rocky personal life, so be it. That has little bearing on his or her ability to govern.
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
Perhaps to sum up my view, the fact that Al Gore is getting divorced would have no bearing on my vote or his ability to govern. The Gores are being honest about their relationship. The fact that John Edwards would try to convince an aide to claim an illegitimate child would have a strong bearing on my vote and would undermine his ability to govern.
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
I'm waiting for Will Folks and Larry Marchant to admit this is over the three-way affair they had with Al.
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
For me, the question is whether the politician conducts his personal life in a way that distracts from the task of governing. Having a quiet and discreet affair is very different from vanishing for several days and turning up in Brazil, and an amicable separation or divorce is not the same as a messy, vindictive breakup where your spouse leaks details of your key parties to Drudge and the National Enquirer. Also, when the politician does get caught and tries to lie his way out of it ("I did not have sex with that woman ... Miss Lewinski"), I believe there is an outright breach of public trust and it is no longer a private matter.
I don't expect my leaders to be Caesar's wife -- even Caesar wasn't Caesar's wife -- but I do expect them to be respectful and meticulous hypocrites, and pay due homage to virtue in their discretion and willingness to take responsibility if necessary. They might also avoid trading publicly on their family lives if they know those happy families to be a sham. Saves trouble explaining later.
May '10
Re: The Gore Split
Andrew Klavan
I hesitate to say it, but can we take the Gore divorce to be a sign of the coming era of global cooling?
Re: The Gore Split
Sounds judicious, Daniel, but there's something about vices. The truth will out. It's implicit in some of our talk about the vices of politicians that sexual liberties should be viewed more as a perk for those willing to do demanding jobs well. Or, more cheaply, that a leader's character matters less the better he or she does.