Private life and politics

[Mahonnant]

This might be a little bit too french-centric for this mainly american forum but, following the arrest and indictment of the IMF director in a rape case (which has huge repercussions in French public life as the guy was a presidential hopeful) there is a rising debate in French journalism about private life and politicians.

The consensus in France until now was that what happened under the sheets was private, French always saw the sex scandals that seem to be one of the bread and butter of English and American public life with a bit of amusement. As a rule we don't care if A has an affair with B, or rather the media choose not to report it (I am not so idealistic as to think that French people would not be drawn to tabloid news). The fact that former president Miterrand had a "secret" daughter became public knowledge at the end of his life, the only issue that was ever raised was that she was under police protection on taxpayer money, and even that did not produce the uproar it would have in most other places in the world...

Understand that, in Strauss Kahn's (the IMF director) case I am not saying that the rape case should have been covered up, here we are dealing with a gross felony, it is newsworthy and, if convicted, DSK should be thrown in the mud. But DSK has always been known as a womanizer (which is actually a good thing in French politics, as long as it happens between two consenting adults), the thing is that some similar near-rape cases by DSK are starting to surface, he may have an history of violence to women (once again this is for the moment not clearly proven, it may be nothing more than a mudslinging operation, the right wing begins to be desperate enough about next year's elections) and cover-ups might have been involved.

The question the journalists are debating is : do we put too high a value on private life, preventing a case to have been made on DSK behaviour ?

So what do you think ? Which is more sensible to you ? Where should the line be drawn ? Should there be such a thing as the american "higher standard" ? Are we not asking the politicians to lie to us if we want to hold them to it ?

[Azrael]

You can quite easily maintain a respect for privacy while not encouraging the dismissal of criminal behavior. Overlooking criminal behavior of politicians is, to various degrees, corruption.

The attitude that any relations between what could conceivably be a pair of consenting heterosexual adults is necessarily a private matter is purposefully ignorant and can be quite dangerous. Especially when it's a violent crime and not between consenting parties. I am somewhat suspicious that if a male political figure engaged in a different form of violent assault (say, vigorously beating another man with a golf club) it would would not be deemed "private".

[Mokele]

Personally, I don't care about a politician's personal or sex life as long as it's not a) illegal and/or b) hypocritical. The former is pretty self-explanatory, and the latter's fairly simple - if a politician spends a vast amount of time extolling "family values" yet is cheating on their spouse, or if they actively propose/promote/vote for homophobic legislation while having loads of secret gay sex, they deserve to be publicly ridiculed and possibly driven out of office by the scandal. Difference of opinions I'm fine with, but I detest hypocrisy.

[Deep_Thought]

This is actually pretty topical for the whole of Europe right now, given Max Mosely's failed bid to require newspapers to notify people they are about to publish stories on - see here. The UK is having quite a large public debate about the issue at the moment, as the rise of the super-injunction is seen to have had a restraining affect on the press (sort of). The trouble is that if anything we go too far the other way - our tabloids are so obsessed with the celebrity sex scandal du jour that serious journalism suffers. I mostly agree with Mokele in that I'm not really bothered by a politician's private life until it strays into the realms of corruption of hypocrisy. I'm less interested in a celebrity's private life. Especially those that are only famous for their sex-life in the first place.

However, counter-balancing this I think that if you place yourself in the public eye then you start to lose your "right" to privacy. Attention-seekers cannot choose what kind of attention they receive, and politician's backgrounds should be scrutinised for character flaws, as you don't want them blowing up while in office.

[jules.LT]

Personally, I don't care about a politician's personal or sex life as long as it's not a) illegal and/or b) hypocritical.

100% with you here.

However, counter-balancing this I think that if you place yourself in the public eye then you start to lose your "right" to privacy. Attention-seekers cannot choose what kind of attention they receive, and politician's backgrounds should be scrutinised for character flaws, as you don't want them blowing up while in office.

If it isn't illegal or antithetic to one's professed values, I don't see why we should give it that much attention.
The important thing is what they do on the job.

btw, I heard of "only" one old near-rape case about DSK. You say "some": is there another that I haven't heard of?

[Goplat]

Personally, I don't care about a politician's personal or sex life as long as it's not a) illegal and/or b) hypocritical. The former is pretty self-explanatory, and the latter's fairly simple - if a politician spends a vast amount of time extolling "family values" yet is cheating on their spouse

If someone is cheating on his spouse, I'd be a lot less happy about him being in office, regardless of liberal vs. conservative social views.

If someone is willing to break the oath that goes "I take you to be my lawfully wedded wife, and promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in richness and in poorness, in sickness and in health, etc etc", why should we trust him to keep the one that goes "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"?

[Deep_Thought]

However, counter-balancing this I think that if you place yourself in the public eye then you start to lose your "right" to privacy. Attention-seekers cannot choose what kind of attention they receive, and politician's backgrounds should be scrutinised for character flaws, as you don't want them blowing up while in office.

If it isn't illegal or antithetic to one's professed values, I don't see why we should give it that much attention.
The important thing is what they do on the job.

I'm not totally sure which of my two comments you are addressing that to, so I will respond to both individually:

1) In general I agree that we really shouldn't be interested in people's private lives. However there are certain celebrities, and even politicians, who try to attract as much positive press and attention as possible. These people are hypocritical if they then complain when the press starts talking about other aspects of their lives.

2) There are certain character flaws that might indicate that someone won't actually perform very well in office. Also, it is possible for someone (e.g. Tony Blair) to suddenly assume a top job without any actual experience in a junior position. How are you, as a voter, supposed to judge "what they do on the job" when they don't actually hold that job? You have to make inferences from their character. DSK has held office previously so he does have a track record to judge. But that track record includes the 2008 affair with a married subordinate, which to many people is unacceptable as it's just bad business ethics.

[Enuja]

I heard someone on the radio today saying that it's actually French privacy laws, not a French cultural acceptance of sex scandals, that makes sex scandals not a big deal in French political life. I have no idea if this person is correct or not.

If someone is cheating on his spouse, I'd be a lot less happy about him being in office, regardless of liberal vs. conservative social views.

If someone is willing to break the oath that goes "I take you to be my lawfully wedded wife, and promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in richness and in poorness, in sickness and in health, etc etc", why should we trust him to keep the one that goes "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"?

What about married people who didn't make those vows, for whom sexual fidelity is not an important part of their relationship? Because there are plenty of married non-monogamous people, and if you don't want any of those people to be in office, regardless of their social views, I've got a problem with that, and I think that's highly inappropriate attention to a politician's personal life. You said "cheat", so you might be OK with agreed upon non-monogamy in marriage, but I can't tell from what you said.

[SamaraLexx]

The American media is so split, it's difficult to say where they should draw the line because they can't even agree on the definition of a line. One program will say it's wrong to bring, say, Sarah Palin's family into a discussion but will spend weeks discussing Obama's birth certificate (not saying those are the same, but you could argue that both are pointless) the next program will have the exact opposite view.

My personal opinion is that a politician's private life shouldn't matter as much as their political actions, with the exceptions that have already been mentioned in the thread. I worry about it because it seems in recent years, there has been a surge of politicians who are spending SO much time trying to make themselves look like they're "just like us", with no high tooting elitist degrees and are card carrying members of the wholesome family club. There is so much emphasis on that, that we end up forgetting to check if they know what the hell they're talking about.

So my answer would be that, with the exceptions of illegal or grossly hypocritical acts, a politician's personal life should take a major back seat to their political actions.

[Mahonnant]

If someone is cheating on his spouse, I'd be a lot less happy about him being in office, regardless of liberal vs. conservative social views.
If someone is willing to break the oath that goes "I take you to be my lawfully wedded wife, and promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in richness and in poorness, in sickness and in health, etc etc", why should we trust him to keep the one that goes "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"?

One might argue that the wedding oaths are more a tradition than anything else, hence why adultery is not considered a crime anymore in modern society. To place every oath on the same level of sacredness seems an exercise in futility for me...
An oath of office is infinitely more important to me (as a voting person) than an oath between spouses, Anne Sinclair, who is a very good journalist in addition to being DSK's wife, has pretty much always supported her husband regardless of his numerous affairs, if that works for her and they have some sort of an open marriage who am I to judge ?

I heard someone on the radio today saying that it's actually French privacy laws, not a French cultural acceptance of sex scandals, that makes sex scandals not a big deal in French political life.

You are right in a way, private life is very protected by French laws, but laws are nothing more than an emanation of a society's culture so the argument circles.

However there are certain celebrities, and even politicians, who try to attract as much positive press and attention as possible. These people are hypocritical if they then complain when the press starts talking about other aspects of their lives.

This is an interesting point of view, traditionally French politicians do not put as much an emphasis on politicians families as they do in the US, but the US storytelling trend has been imported during 2007 elections by Sarkozy who used his family (it did backlash when he finally divorced his then wife and later married Bruni). The problem is that once this can of worms has been opened by one person, it pretty much applies to every politician, regardless of his views on the matter.

But that track record includes the 2008 affair with a married subordinate, which to many people is unacceptable as it's just bad business ethics.

Well, let me emphasize that in France that is mostly viewed as a sign of good health in a man (even if that tends to change somewhat, mostly because it is seen from France as a faux-pas(?) when working in the US).

[jules.LT]

But that track record includes the 2008 affair with a married subordinate, which to many people is unacceptable as it's just bad business ethics.

Well, let me emphasize that in France that is mostly viewed as a sign of good health in a man (even if that tends to change somewhat, mostly because it is seen from France as a faux-pas(?) when working in the US).

I wouldn't go as far as an affair being a good thing, especially with a subordinate, but in France the worry was mostly about whether he had shown favoritism towards her because of it.
The fact that he probably used his status to pressure her strongly until she gave in is damning too, but that was never made clear at the time (in our press anyway).

[Deep_Thought]

I wouldn't go as far as an affair being a good thing, especially with a subordinate, but in France the worry was mostly about whether he had shown favoritism towards her because of it.
The fact that he probably used his status to pressure her strongly until she gave in is damning too, but that was never made clear at the time (in our press anyway).

Emphasis mine. That kind of issue is why affairs inside your own organisation are frowned upon. If he's having an affair outside of work, as you say, that's his own business (no pun intended). Inside work there is huge potential for abuse (If you want concrete examples read up on what was happening at the top of Enron). As jules says the exact circumstances of whether she was pressured into it are unclear, but the fact that in the end she was made redundant rather than leaving of her own volition suggests some funny business was going on.

With regards to the view in France that a man having an affair is a sign of good health, what is the view of the women on the other end of these affairs?

[weasel@xkcd]

Personally, I don't care about a politician's personal or sex life as long as it's not a) illegal and/or b) hypocritical. The former is pretty self-explanatory, and the latter's fairly simple - if a politician spends a vast amount of time extolling "family values" yet is cheating on their spouse, or if they actively propose/promote/vote for homophobic legislation while having loads of secret gay sex, they deserve to be publicly ridiculed and possibly driven out of office by the scandal. Difference of opinions I'm fine with, but I detest hypocrisy.

I pretty much agree with this however I can understand wanting to be informed of a politician's actions, someone who believes in 'family values' could reasonably wish to be represented by someone who lives up to those values. I suppose I believe we should be informed of politicians' actions but that the obsession many nations' media pick over their private lives is too much.

[jules.LT]

With regards to the view in France that a man having an affair is a sign of good health, what is the view of the women on the other end of these affairs?

The "sign of good health" may be slightly exaggerated.
As for the view of the women, it depends. Probably slightly worse than the view on the man, but not that bad.
We're pretty accepting of sex in general, and talks of "family values" tend to trigger laïcité uproars or ridicule.

[Deep_Thought]

Thanks for explaining. France (and most of continental Europe) is much more open about sex and relationships than the UK and US, which I applaud. But there also seems to be an element of traditional macho-ness in attitudes towards DSK that almost excuses his behaviour, a kind of droit de seigeur that I don't applaud (the same applies to Italy and Berlusconi). It is very hard to judge these things as an outsider.

[jules.LT]

As for Berlusconi, the really reprehensible thing I heard about is sex with minors.
For him and DSK, there is a kind of macho attitude that approves of sexual exploits, but the lines before something will be considered excessive and then criminal exist. They're just further away.

[Deep_Thought]

I shouldn't have mentioned Berlusconi - I suspect we could debate his antics for days

I'd hope that the line for criminality is roughly in the same place as over here, but you are right that much of this discussion revolves around where the line for excessive is drawn in different cultures. Over here Nick Clegg was pilloried when a reporter asked him how many lovers he'd had and he responded "No more than 30". Most people's reaction was either "Show-off!" or "Where did he find the time?".

[Mahonnant]

I'd hope that the line for criminality is roughly in the same place as over here

In terms of rape I think it is pretty much the same, the difference lies in what is considered harassment / excessive I would think.

[KestrelLowing]

I'd hope that the line for criminality is roughly in the same place as over here

In terms of rape I think it is pretty much the same, the difference lies in what is considered harassment / excessive I would think.

That does seem to be quite different in France. This isn't from personal experience, but one of my friends studied a year abroad in France and she said that men would often do things that would just be considered harassment or just plain creepy in the US. Mostly this was just reserved to men coming up to her and calling her sexy (generally in non-club environments in the US, indicating that someone is 'sexy' is generally not a good idea - sex really shouldn't be brought into the picture), but evidently she even got pinched on the butt once (although that may have been out of line, even for France).

[jules.LT]

Pinching a girl's butt is definitely out of line. Not lawsuit-worthy, though.

We do have a much different definition of sexual harrassment, and I don't envy yours.
This being said, a guy like DSK crossed our lawsuit-worthy line innumerable times...

[addams]

The American media is so split, it's difficult to say where they should draw the line because they can't even agree on the definition of a line. One program will say it's wrong to bring, say, Sarah Palin's family into a discussion but will spend weeks discussing Obama's birth certificate (not saying those are the same, but you could argue that both are pointless) the next program will have the exact opposite view.

My personal opinion is that a politician's private life shouldn't matter as much as their political actions, with the exceptions that have already been mentioned in the thread. I worry about it because it seems in recent years, there has been a surge of politicians who are spending SO much time trying to make themselves look like they're "just like us", with no high tooting elitist degrees and are card carrying members of the wholesome family club. There is so much emphasis on that, that we end up forgetting to check if they know what the hell they're talking about.

So my answer would be that, with the exceptions of illegal or grossly hypocritical acts, a politician's personal life should take a major back seat to their political actions.

You wrote the following:
"I worry about it because it seems in recent years, there has been a surge of politicians who are spending SO much time trying to make themselves look like they're "just like us", with no high tooting elitist degrees and are card carrying members of the wholesome family club. There is so much emphasis on that, that we end up forgetting to check if they know what the hell they're talking about."
I agree.
There is, sometimes, more to these things. This man may have been set up.
If, he is fortunate, then, he will be able to slink off with is life more, or, less intact.

[skeptical scientist]

Criminal behavior is not private, so I don't see how this debate is at all relevant to the case of DSK, or why DSK's actions should have raised such a debate.

[jules.LT]

Because of behaviour prior to the criminal case

[Enuja]

I think skeptical scientist has a really good point.

Having lots of sex with lots of different people does not pre-dispose someone to commit rape and sexual assault. Rape is not really a sexual thing: it's a power thing. Confounding a propensity to rape and sexual promiscuity is really, really problematic. Now, I strongly suspect that DSK has been able to redirect any sexual assault and power mis-use allegations to promiscuity allegations, and then those promiscuity allegations were considered private. I think the cultural problem is much more in the first step than in the second.

[jules.LT]

Nobody confounded promiscuity and propensity to rape in this thread, did they?
This is indeed about nigh-criminal (or maybe criminal) behaviour that was hidden in part thanks to the respect for privacy.

I don't really see this as a problem with the culture of privacy, or with the attitude of the media or general public for that matter. More with the judiciary system which didn't inspire enough trust for any woman to come forward with the agressive sexual harrassment and misuse of power that he's been guilty of repeatedly.

[M.C.]

I don't want to know, even if they are cheating on their spouse. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 906352.htm .
It is an entirely private transgression.