"Family Values" Governor Separates From Wife

[Brown]

From the Washington Post and the AP (registration may be required):

Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, a conservative who campaigned on a family values platform, canceled a pair of speeches to religious groups two days after announcing that he and his wife of 28 years are separating.

Owens told his staff Tuesday that he will not serve as the keynote speaker for a Focus on the Family Conference, nor will he address the Pennsylvania Family Institute. Both speeches were scheduled for next month.

I do not post this to suggest that Owens is a hypocrite. Rather, I post this article to point out the dangers of promoting "family values." To many people, a "family values" platform is geared toward making laws that make it harder for people to divorce or to separate (among other things). While it may be true that there are too many divorces and separations in this country, it is questionable whether government ought to take an active role to cut down those numbers.

Because of his experience, Owens might feel that quesions of divorce and separation are matters that are primarily the concern of the individuals involved, not government.

In general, if two married people come to despise each other, they probably should divorce or separate. A divorce or a separation does not mean that either partner is necessarily an evil person.

 

[headscratcher4]

Brown:

Sad for his family...this and the reissue of the Arnold Oui article got me thinking. Specifically, when the Arnold Oui interview was reissued, I thought "So what....it was 25 years ago. I didn't condemn Clinton for his indiscretions, that won't be the reason I would oppose someone like Arnold, etc."

It than occurred to me that, post Clinton, the standard has dramatically declined. Arnold can argue it doesn't matter. The conservatives (or just GOP stalwarts) will ignore Arnold's past (because they can now), and say it was all in the past and that it doesn't matter, etc. In short, the family value crowd will not completely abandon these candidates because of their past indiscretions.

It is sometime alleged that the publicity around Clinton has made this "reform" in our politics possible. Clinton survived (if barely) his scandal, his marriage remains "intact" (something the family values crowd should applaud rather than constantly speculate about -- i.e. Hillary doesn't really need Bill any more for power, so maybe she remains married because it really is "love")? In short, Clinton made it possible for people with troubling behavior in their past to run for office and be credible.

I would like to offer a different interpretation...it isn't Clinton that has made this possible. Were Clinton's indiscretions unique and peculiar to Democrats, or "Liberals", etc. than that case might be made. However, if we in this nation are now more forgiving of prior bad sexual behavior, it is because the "family values" conservatives had no credibility on the issue of morals or conduct. In other words, Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Robert Livingston, Dan Burton -- all GOP Champions of the "Democrats" are morally corrupt politics -- were themselves participants in activities that their own party and followers sought to call "morally" questionable.

Had everyone who accused Clinton of "moral" and "ethical" dishonesty been "clean" as it were...had society not expected and tolerated "massive" hypocrisy when it comes to sex, marital fidelity, etc. among politicians, than Clinton would not have survived.

This governor will likely survive and live to demagogue "family values" another day and, like Arnold, he doesn't have Clinton to thank for his ability to survive, he has Hyde, Gingrich, Livingston, et al. to thank...

 

[corplinx]

However, if we in this nation are now more forgiving of prior bad sexual behavior, it is because the "family values" conservatives had no credibility on the issue of morals or conduct. In other words, Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Robert Livingston, Dan Burton -- all GOP Champions of the "Democrats" are morally corrupt politics -- were themselves participants in activities that their own party and followers sought to call "morally" questionable.

Its a good thought, but none of these people (or their indiscretions) had the notoriety of Clinton.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Its a good thought, but none of these people (or their indiscretions) had the notoriety of Clinton.

Very interesting, considering that Clinton never rode the family values bandwagon, and therefore cannot have the additional charge of hypocrisy leveled at him.