Gingrichian Hypocrisy

To some, Newt Gingrich became a hero in the South Carolina debate when he wittily responded to the debate moderator who had asked Gingrich about his personal life. The issue of course was a bit lewd but it had been reported by Gingrich’s second wife that the former Speaker of the House had asked her if she would like to enter into an “open marriage.” For those unaware, this is a marriage where either party is free to have sex with whomever they like. It was also reported that Gingrich wanted to “add” Calista (now Calista Gingrich) to his second marriage. His (second) wife apparently said no. That marriage was later terminated and he married Calista whom he had been having an affair with for some 6 years.

Whether or not the details of Newt’s supposed proposal are true or not are somewhat irrelevant. The events surrounding their reporting, however, are very relevant to voters and anyone who considers their self a “morals” voter.

I was in Ireland the day of the debate and was flying home the day after. Once I got back to the states this was the top story on all the political talk shows. Needless to say this same discussion had lit up Facebook the way only politics can do. I expected to read some outlandish comments and some really good ones as well. What shocked me was that most of the Christians I know were actually defending Gingrich! I literally could not believe it. I re-read some of the posts to make sure I wasn’t seeing things (I was jet-lagged after all). Unfortunately, I found the same distorted partyism I had read the first time.

I try to avoid getting into politics, especially on my blog, but this issue calls for a Christian response and I want to share reasons why I am appalled at the behavior and demeanor of Newt Gingrich.

First of all, his response to the debate moderator was absolutely brilliant. Newt managed to turn his own misdeeds into a seeming persecution by the liberal media. He even said that the actions of the moderator and his team were as “near despicable” as Newt could imagine. Apparently many of my friends agreed. “Why bring this up in a presidential debate?” is a question many people asked. Well, I can think of several reasons. One reason is that Gingrich has always run his campaign on a foundation of conservative values. I don’t recall any of those values including disposing of your wife for a newer model every few years (Mt 19). Another reason to bring this up is because the campaign process is a way for the American people to vet potential candidates. If this story is true then wouldn’t we want to know that the person running for our highest office has aberrant sexual desires that may be tied to other psychological issues? One other reason is because this was his wife! If he treated the person closest to him (supposedly) in such a thoughtless way, why wouldn’t he do the same to the millions of people in this country that he has never met? These are all legitimate questions.

Secondly, this is the same man who led the charge to impeach Clinton (which was successful in the house but not the Senate) over his behavior with Monica Lewinsky. Gingrich now says that it was not the behavior of President Clinton but the fact that he lied about it under oath that upset him. This is a pretty clever political maneuver but it has consequences. If Gingrich means these words, then he must be saying that an oath of office is more significant than an oath to your wife. In fact, in a recent interview on CNN (email me if you want the link) he says you can judge the former President’s actions (the affair) as a private citizen and not like it or like it. We are forced to conclude that Gingrich “liked” it because he reflected the exact same behavior in his personal life. We need to understand that if we elect Gingrich as President we are electing a man who has absolutely no moral high ground to use as collateral and is appalled at the very notion of being challenged on that issue.

Third, I am disgusted at the hypocrisy of every person who ever castigated President Clinton for his sinful actions but now wants to give Gingrich a pass. If it was a topic worthy of discussion then it is also worthy now. It should not matter if the politician is a Republican or Democrat.
We have got to get as serious about our own morality as we are about our politics. Double standards are a favorite tool of skeptics. We are supposed to be the salt and light. We could make the argument that we are voting on politics and not morals but I’m not sure that our Lord would appreciate that type of secular compartmentalization (Col 3:17).

I thought about writing as a conclusion that Gingrich could not do anything to win my vote but that is not true. There was a time in history when one of our great leaders was caught in an affair and a cover up and his reaction not only vindicated him but also increased his influence as a leader. Psalm 51 expresses that reaction. What Gingrich needs to do is repent. Confess his sin to God and be contrite. I want that for him and for his own good. But wouldn’t it be beautiful to have a leader like that?

- JC3