Illogical Infidelity Arguments
This Sunday, I was treated to a family discussion about the recently exposed infidelity of Milwaukee’s police chief, Edward A. Flynn. He had an affair with a journalist, Jessica McBride, who wrote a glowing profile of him in Milwaukee Magazine. My relatives offered two arguments about why this infidelity was so shocking. I will outline, and attempt to refute, them below.
1. People who cheat on their spouses cannot be trusted in marriage, and therefore cannot be trusted in other areas of life. Specifically, because Chief Flynn had an affair, his actions as chief are also suspect. If he would cheat on his wife, then he might also cheat the city. As illogical as this seems, the basis of the argument has to do with trust. People trusted Flynn to be a bastion of the law, both criminal and moral. Because he failed their moral standards (and probably his own), he might begin to think of himself as someone who does break laws and thus is more likely to become corrupt.
I will discuss infidelity itself below; I don’t think that this argument is best defeated by attempting to change perceptions of adultery. Instead, let’s think about this in terms of personal versus work life. We can all agree (well, most of us) that George Bush was a failed president. He wrecked America’s standing in the world, destroyed the economy, and undermined fundamental institutions of government through intentional neglect. Using the same logic as above, this must also mean that he is a terrible husband and father. If Flynn’s actions in his personal life are a harbinger of actions he will take in his professional life, then Bush’s actions as president must surely mean that his marriage is on the verge of collapse as well.
The wonderful thing about employment, however, is that it is just one part of your entire identity. Yes, your job may mean a lot to you, but for few people does it define entire character. The same is true for each and every part of identity. Flynn and Bush may have failed in one part of their identity; they both have character flaws. But that does not mean that they cannot succeed in many other ways. Flynn can still be an excellent police chief, and Bush can still be a great husband. We aren’t likely to think as highly of either after they did a poor job in one area, but that doesn’t mean they must be derided in all aspects of their lives.
2. Since President Clinton, public officials who have affairs never suffer negative consequences. Thus, Chief Flynn will merely apologize and then continue working, setting a bad moral example for everyone. Essentially, Clinton was the single force to bring about the collapse of all morals in America.
This assumes that all infidelity is created equal, when this is clearly not the case. Clinton offers an interesting example, as he had an affair with an intern, a subordinate, when he was the most powerful man in the world. This raises many questions about how the affair started. For Flynn, he had an affair with a journalist. While she is younger than he, they don’t work in the same field. If anything, she is the one who should worry. After all, she violated journalistic ethics in not disclosing her affair in her article about the chief.
Not all infidelity is created equal, and while society may deride all adultery, it remains a very private act. The conversations between a husband and wife should never be disclosed; the courts agree and exempt spouses from having to testify against each other. Thus, it may be errant to assume that a liaison outside the bounds of marriage was not previously sanctioned within the marriage. Indeed, an affair may serve as the glue keeping a marriage from ending. But regardless, infidelity is a personal matter that should remain private. The best we can do is assume one thing: if infidelity does not end a marriage, then it has been given satisfactory explanation by the parties involved.
So, to argue that Flynn will get away with high crimes simply because a past president had an affair ignores basic facts about the nature of infidelity. When a marriage is successful, or when two people decide to work through tough times, this should be praised by society. But if one member of the couple strays, we must not assume that it was without the knowledge or consent of the other member. The consequences, thus, must be considered accordingly. A private matter should have private consequences; it is not up to society to punish infidelity, as society cannot possibly know whom the “crime” has harmed.
Related posts (automatically generated):