Morality, Monogamy, and Newt Gingrich

The latest news from Republicanland is that Newt Gingrich has stormed to the front of the dog race. He brings with him the bombast, fury, and total disregard for the facts of the Republican electorate seems to be searching for this election cycle. If you listen to the mainstream media, it seems like the biggest problem in his past is not his disgraced fall from his position as Speaker of the House nor his subsequent career as a lobbyist/overpaid historian/con-man, but his personal life.

It is a well-documented, scandal-filled personal life, crowned by having an affair with a member of his staff at the same time as he was crusading to have then-President Clinton impeached for having an affair with a member of staff. What most members of the news media, with the exception of Rachel Maddow, fail to point out is that what  makes Gingrich’s story despicable and, more importantly, a valid point for electoral politics is the hypocrisy of his policies, not the specific details of his personal life. It would be one thing if this was simply a problem in the theocratic realms of right wing TV and radio, but, across the board, this distinction simply has not been made enough. Should we distrust Gingrich because he is a divorcee or because, even with that past, he campaigns with a platform that includes fidelity pledges. For having an affair with a woman he said now seems to be in a very loving relationship with, or for arguing the existence of a much less serious affair was grounds to dismiss the democratically elected president? Or the newest attack, for asking his second wife for an open marriage or because his economic policies could actually be categorized as class warfare? Unfortunately, all these factors seem to be lumped together with even progressives  participating in shaming any type of suggested sexual deviance.

Let’s start with the divorce. Sure, nobody likes divorces. They’re sad. It means that some of the big things you hoped for didn’t work out... But it is hardly proof of some kind of grievous moral failing. Around half of all American marriages end in divorce. And that’s okay. In fact, I’m sure almost everybody knows somebody would be better off if they got a divorce. And is the alternative really better? Would it be better if our politicians and public figures stayed in miserable, unhealthy, unfulfilling relationships? Surely it’s better to learn from your past mistakes and act accordingly rather than refusing to make a change. Isn’t that the quality we want in a leader rather than just stubbornness? Indeed, the argument can be made that the only proof that Gingrich has changed since a disgraced exit from the house is his seemingly very healthy marriage to Calista Gingrich. Perhaps, like my father, Newt just got it right the 3rd time around (other similarities include being white, being male... and that’s about it). Besides, it is important to recognize that divorce is a basic human right to liberalize society. Would it be better if we had laws impeding us from ending consensual relationships? It should be the circumstances around a divorce that can potential it may come political problems, not the divorce itself. 

What about Newt? He was cheating on both of his former wives before their divorces. Isn’t that more than enough grounds to question his character and make the divorces political fodder for Gingrich’s enemies? The short answer is, of course, yes. Nobody likes a cheater. While it certainly does not reflect well upon your character I think it ranks pretty low on the list of skeletons in our politicians closets. We have sitting representatives who are, arguably guilty of crimes ranging from embezzlement to insider-trading to crimes against humanity. Cheating on your significant other does not make you a criminal. Even if it does make you an asshole, so do things like disenfranchising voters, trying to undermine our rights to bargain collectively, being more concerned with the rights of zygotes than the rights of women, or being a libertarian. And yet while cheating (even over Twitter) can be a career-ending disgrace, the rest of these blemishes seems to be par for the course.

It would also be different if the American public was leading stable, happy, completely monogamous lives. but with over fifty percent of marriages ending in divorce and an estimated forty to sixty percent of married Americans cheating at some point in their lives that is clearly not the case. For the most part, progressives and leftists have done little to combat the idea Americans have lost their ‘moral compass.’ However, while conservatives have a solution (the teachings of Jesus Christ), liberals have basically just thrown up their hands, condescendingly hoping that people just start to behave ‘better’.

That is almost the worst reaction we could have. Rather than sticking with the old, failing  system of morality, we must begin to seriously endorse the idea of alternatives to the Judeo-Christian bonds of monogamy. The Abrahamic religions, aided by even supposedly secular governments, have created a system of morality surrounding marriage is fixed, standardized, and singular, where monogamy is presented as the only possible choice. However, among a great many types of people there is a basic understanding of that, based on the facts of human history what we view as moral is not fixed permanently but is rather a semi-fluid creation of society. 

There are two different ways people reacted to this information. The first oversimplifies this vital historiographical lesson into the specter of Moral Relativism. According to this ideology, because it is impossible to find one specific definition of moral behavior identically codified throughout human history, it is impossible to codify what is moral for anyone besides yourself. This is clearly a standard of Ayn Randian libertarianism, but it has seeped its way into the much more mainstream gospel of tolerance. While shrouded in the guise of individualism and personal  responsibility, Moral Relativism has caused more damage than rap music, short skirts, contraception, or any other of the factors traditionally ‘blamed’ for the state of our society. Moral Relativism’s general acceptance on the right and left has castrated every group beyond the most extreme religious conservatives on the issue of morality. The maximum of live and let live has been taken to an extreme where few people are willing to stand behind any kind of moral structure, let alone one that goes against the traditional norms of society.

Progressives must not allow ourselves to do this. We need to make it clear that is possible to be moral and not share the same precise definitions of morality as our forefathers. Norms change when society changes, and, historically, only then can what is considered to be moral change. We are clearly a culture stock before that final step. Even if we publicly pay homage to the norms of our past, our societal norms are clearly changed. Central to the ideals of Progressivism is that our society’s norms must not simply be based on antiquated traditions or created to serve the interest of a specific subset of the population. They must serve everyone, a general rather than a specific good. That simply cannot be done if we continue to base what we consider moral off of words written thousands of years ago. Progressives hesitancy to support alternatives to strict monogamous relationships is hindered, not helped the American public.  It is clear from our actions that many Americans, no matter what they say, simply do not feel like a traditional marriage, with all of its bells, whistles, and restrictions, is right for them.

I want to make it very clear that I’m not arguing that everyone would be happier if we had a different little cookie-cutter to shape what we think of as moral. Suggesting that everyone should try the same nontraditional relationship structure, even if the effort was wholeheartedly endorsed by Americans across the legal and social spectrum, would simply result in the same problem that we have today. Instead what needs to be preached is the importance of choice and personal consent. As long as there is consent I see no problem if you choose to pursue relationships that are  heterosexual, homosexual, monogamous, monoamorous, polygamist, polyamorous, or anything that works for you and your consenting partner(s). And, to reinforce the most important aspect being consent and desire, there should be no shame in declaring that you made the wrong choice and ending the relationship, regardless of how sad it might be. 


One of the central tenets of a modernized, economically and socially liberalized (the old-school definition) society is choice. If we decide we want a different job, or that we want to enter into a different field entirely, we may. If we decide we would prefer to live somewhere else in the country, or even, with the proper documentation, somewhere else in the world, we may. If we want to change our diet, our wardrobe, our source of news, or our favorite sports team, we may. Though some might question some of those decisions, they’re hardly viewed as grounds to dismiss  someone’s moral character. Why should we not have the right to choose how we wish to carry on personal relationships with in the same manner?  I seriously doubt that this, as some fear-mongers on the right have suggested, would create a system with a critical mass of the (particularly female) population choosing to engage in purely homosexual relationships or where children grow up without proper role models because their parents are too busy having gigantic hedonistic orgies. Odds are the majority of Americans would still end up choosing to be in a heterosexual monogamous, or least monoamorous, relationships. Helping to support alternatives to strict monogamy will not rip down today society. Rather, it will help provide anybody who wants something else with more than just shame and derision.

And that brings back Newt Gingrich’s supposed request for an open marriage. When I first heard the “story”  I have to say it made perfect sense. Gingrich’s claim to fame is politician is being a big, bold ideas guy. When traditional wisdom dictates and arguments between choices A and B, Gingrich usually seems to get behind choice J. Sometimes his ideas are just plain stupid, like his plan to put mirrors on the moon. Some are offensive and pig-headed, like his plan to hire poor children to take the place of unionized janitors in their schools. But some, like his insistence on protecting America from a cyber attack (certainly more plausible than an electromagnetic pulse) have plenty of merit. 

And, to me, asking his second wife for open marriage seems like one of those. At least in his prime, strict monogamy did not seem to agree with Newt. His first marriage ended partially because of his affair with his second wife. Barely a few years into his second marriage, Newt and Ginther took a multi-year break when they lived separately. Then, his second marriage ended because of an affair with the woman that would become his third wife. Perhaps this is going a bit far, but it seems quite clear that Gingrich, has, or least had, a particularly voracious sexual appetite. And, with his wife hospitalized, Gingrich either had to deal with it, or look elsewhere. This is a perfect example of situation where most Americans would say they would do one thing while probably doing another. But few would do what Newt is reported to have done. Facing two choices: remaining in a sexually, and, reportedly, emotionally unfulfilling relationship, or cheating, Gingrich pursued choice J, an open marriage.  The funniest thing to me about his ex-wife’s recent interview is that the big secret she revealed was not that he was cheating on her, but that he was honest about it. The problem was not asking for an open marriage,  It was, after that request had been denied, carrying on as though it had accepted. 

There are so many reasons to vote against Gingrich. There are few powerful figures in modern American politics with policies that have the power to reshape American society into some sort of Dickensian Oligarchy as Newt. Lambast his punitive (on the poor) tax code, criticize his plans to totally destroy the social safety net, castigate him for his fiery rhetoric about arresting liberal justices, even chastise him for being a serial cheater, but please, leave the open marriage business well alone. And, liberals, the next time you participate in shaming some kind of sexual or moral ‘deviant,’ really ask yourselves why you’re doing it. If you can come up with a reason beyond those found in Abrahamic writ, please tell me, I’d love to know.