How Schwarzenegger-Love-Child Scandal Changed my Voting Behavior
Arnold Schwarzenegger's admission last week that he had fathered a love child, more than ten years ago, jolted me as it did others around the country. This case was tawdrier than most for a host of reasons. The ex-Governor of California hid the secret not merely from his wife but from voters. He continued to have his secret lover working for the family. She gave birth just weeks before Mrs. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver had her youngest child.
The shock value may have worn off. But its stinger remains lodged in my voting behavior. Never again, will I vote for a candidate for national office who has a reputation as a womanizer, seducer, or whatever one wants to call such behavior. I'm not talking about rejecting a presidential candidate, based on flimsy rumors. But if I see a pattern of such behavior emerging, my voting decisions are going to alter accordingly. In times past, I would have qualified such a statement. After all, what if the alternative candidate espouses a political philosophy that I detest? In that case, I will sit out the election. Or what if the candidate's loyal, long-suffering wife forgives the transgression? That will be immaterial. I will no longer revise my stance, based on the spouse's public reaction.
We Americans get the kinds of leaders that we are willing to tolerate. I don't care if our political parties have to reach down to the level of dog catcher, in trying to find suitable candidates. If the person running for office is a married man, I will ignore platitudes about how much he respects women. Instead I will gauge my support based on the degree to which he puts such principles to practice within his own family. This will be a difficult position to maintain, given the growing ideological divide between Democrats and the GOP. And yet judging people by deeds rather words, has always been the shorter path to wisdom.
The shock value may have worn off. But its stinger remains lodged in my voting behavior. Never again, will I vote for a candidate for national office who has a reputation as a womanizer, seducer, or whatever one wants to call such behavior. I'm not talking about rejecting a presidential candidate, based on flimsy rumors. But if I see a pattern of such behavior emerging, my voting decisions are going to alter accordingly. In times past, I would have qualified such a statement. After all, what if the alternative candidate espouses a political philosophy that I detest? In that case, I will sit out the election. Or what if the candidate's loyal, long-suffering wife forgives the transgression? That will be immaterial. I will no longer revise my stance, based on the spouse's public reaction.
We Americans get the kinds of leaders that we are willing to tolerate. I don't care if our political parties have to reach down to the level of dog catcher, in trying to find suitable candidates. If the person running for office is a married man, I will ignore platitudes about how much he respects women. Instead I will gauge my support based on the degree to which he puts such principles to practice within his own family. This will be a difficult position to maintain, given the growing ideological divide between Democrats and the GOP. And yet judging people by deeds rather words, has always been the shorter path to wisdom.
Comments