After the historic re-election of Barack
Obama, and I believe it will be viewed as having more historical importance
than most Presidential elections (including Obama’s first), there was much for
the news media to consider, things that have major importance to nearly every
person in the country, whether they know or care about it at all. Instead there has been virtually days spent
reporting on General/Director David Petraeus’ affair with his young biographer
and how the knowledge of that affair found its way into the public and
political domain. My point is that there
is not a dearth of things to talk about and yet the discussion and analysis of
this event, which in its most basic form is simply the resignation of a
Federal agency’s director, dominates air time. There are territorial fights and pissing
contests over who should have known what and when. So far there has not
been any suggestion of a breach of national security. Considering the FBI has
had months to uncover such, it leads one to surmise none will be found. So what warrants this story transcending ordinary
news about a fall from grace? Quite
possible the answer to that is nothing. Rather, it is more likely to be characteristic
of our age and a new formula that mixes human behavior, media ratings, and, of
course, cyberspace.
Petraeus’ infidelity has real and
honest consequences to himself and his family.
It is not a rare behavior, but the meaning of it falls exclusively
within the realm of his personal life.
No one outside that circle can know how judgment might or should be
applied - speculate as they might. So
what is it that currently generates a seemingly endless commentary? Was this always the case? Hardly.
I am quite willing to make the
leap, without statistical evidence, that Petraeus’ affair happens plenty often
in the rarefied air of political hierarchy, just as it does with the wealthy
movers and shakers in the private sector.
When Bill Clinton was asked why he had sexual relations with Monica
Lewinski he simply and profoundly answered “because
I could”. When it comes to older,
powerful (often wealthy) men having sexual affairs with attractive younger
women it’s hard to find a more compelling enabler. None of this is new, but the times have
definitely changed.
Certainly as late as the
Presidency of John Kennedy, the clandestine sexual trysts of powerful
politicians were not considered relevant to their governance. This attitude was not only held by the participating
bureaucrat and his aides, but also by his rivals and the media. How Kennedy’s
affairs were handled by those around him and the media is astounding in light
of how such is handled today. Franklin
Roosevelt managed to partake in a wheelchair for god sakes. Even Eisenhower,
beloved Ike, as General and Commander of Allied Forces (and perhaps later) could
dally about without scrutiny. Fast
forward to Bill Clinton whose few very un-romantic, back hallway encounters
nearly brought down the entire Federal Government. This is
the world David Petraeus chose to carry out his age old rite of the elites.
The Theocons (faith based Conservatives) of this age relish
in expanding their ethical judgments, regarding sex in particular, to the general
public, attempting to identify such behavior as the kind of deprivation which
is everything they’re not. The popular
media runs with it because they believe the general public’s appetite for scandal
is insatiable and profits are just way too important. Add to that the new reality that these
powerful dabblers are not smart enough to realize that email sent across
cyberspace is about as secure as their zippers and provide an accounting of
their activities in (duh) written form.
All the conspiracies and politicking that surrounds these circus events are
just bad noise.
I liked it better the old
way. Let these men (and sometimes women)
be judged by the policies they promote and enact. If their behavior calls for them to impale themselves,
let that lance be held by their spouses. I’m
just glad I’ve got a DVR.
