For some time I had even been debating whether to write about John Edwards' affair (the story was out there since last fall), and here I am writing about it again. I had written about him last winter regarding why I did not support him for president. He was in the news again when he endorsed Barack Obama, and it was distasteful to me to watch him speak as it always has been. In that endorsement, he said a lot more about his cause and himself than Obama who he finally did get around to mentioning.
I disagreed with Edwards on many issues even as I agree with him that poverty is a problem in the country/world; but what exactly can you say about poverty when you are living a life of $400 haircuts? Is there a level of hypocrisy that makes some (me) feel it might be a case of using poverty for something else-- like a platform?
Then Sunday morning I read Maureen Dowd's column: Keeping it Rielle and it nailed my distaste for Edwards and handed one more story to me. It's a tale of narcissism on all levels.
For anybody who is aware of the myth of Narcissus, there are multiple versions, but the one that fits best is the Roman one. After rejecting Echo and other lovers, Narcissus saw for the first time his own reflection in a pool of water and fell in love. There was a problem though. When he tried to reach his love, it destroyed the reflection. He couldn't even drink from the pool without ruining his reflection. He couldn't leave his love; and so he died.
Narcissism is a damaging extension of a normal human characteristic. It is good, even important to have self-love. It's bad to have it reach a point where what is most important is seeing one's self reflected in the admiration of others. This can be through actions, talents or beauty.
The story of the Edwards liaison is one of narcissism on pretty much all levels. It would be impossible to watch John Edwards talk about anything without seeing his self-love. Remember that humorous YouTube, I feel pretty? Listening to him speak even about his affair and we heard it all again. To his credit, he did admit it's all about him. I know many politicians are that way but it's not attractive-- at least not to me.
Then come the women-- first his wife. I understand Elizabeth is a courageous woman for her battle against cancer, for having more children when they lost their son; for her support of his campaign even while she was fighting what she has said will be a losing battle with cancer; but... he has claimed that she knew he had a secret that could doom his candidacy if he got the nomination and she still supported his run (at this point can we believe anything he says? Might he have lied about when he told her and she allowed it to save his career now? If that is so, she is still sustaining his lie).
Was Elizabeth's willingness to have a second family when they lost their only son still about his ego need for a son to carry on his legacy? Had Elizabeth, a woman we can only admire in most ways, become so caught up in his story and drama that she lost sight of her own?
Next is the mistress. She was a woman whose promiscuous living was so famous that she was immortalized, unflatteringly so, by an ex-boyfriend who happened to also be an author. She had turned all that over though when she discovered New Age spirituality. What Rielle Hunter Told Me.
On the one hand, she could seem like another woman caught up in sustaining John Edwards' ego, but reading more closely, it seems more about her ego. She would make him famous, help him get in touch with his real self. Well she did at least help him break up the reflection. Not sure for how long, of course.
Edwards said he did not father her child. That is possible. If so, it would mean she turned to another man when fired from the Edwards' campaign possibly after Edwards confessed to his wife. How un-broadminded of his wife to not want his mistress around!
Rielle says she won't do a DNA test to clear Edward's name. Could that be because the man who thinks he is the father isn't? Or has she been paid well to let Edwards say he would do one knowing she would not. The poor baby and the Edwards' children as they are the ones for whom I feel most sorry.
The story is very film noir, not for the potential of violence but for the bleakness of characters, the moral ambiguity, the darkness of how it makes you feel as you hear about it.
So why write about this at all? Ancient myths are lived out all the time for their truths in today's world. It's why they are still with us. The dangers of narcissism can come onto anybody who lets their own reflection (or someone else's) become more important than reality. It doesn't require beauty to do that.
(One last element arose this week as a Hillary Clinton's campaign something or other claimed that if Edwards had confessed earlier, Hillary would have gotten most of his votes in Iowa and be the candidate today. Not only is that ridiculous given Obama did better after Edwards dropped out, but does anybody think this Democratic convention is going to be peaceful?)
These photos of reflections were all taken Sunday. Some reflections are easy to discern but some look so much like what is above that you could reverse them and would not know what is up or down. I think it's that kind for which we have to be alert in others as well as ourselves.
6 comments:
I don't really care about the affairs of famous people. I believe that the very fact that they are famous attract predators of the opposite sex and if they are not morally upright they succumb to temptation. I wish the press would ignore it as they did for Roosevelt and Kennedy. It is a tragedy for the family of the unfaithful one, but it is none of our business.
What bothered me about John Edwards was that he tried so hard to create a squeaky clean image that was always too good to be true. Hypocrisy bothers me more than anything and politicians are past masters at that art.
The Edwards' story is classic therefore it interests writers who care about motivations; but it is a factor for the country when someone is a candidate for higher office. He could have been a veep this time or on the cabinet and it's not whether he has sex outside of his marriage. It's whether he used campaign funds to pay a mistress. That isn't okay even when it's a wife if the person was not really competent. She had never done such a job and yet she got $114,000 a year. Who paid that? If it's his personal funds, then it's his wife who cares but if it was public funds, then it's going to get him into legal hot water. Lying about sex is only a crime when it's under oath as for instance when Clinton lied about it. Edwards wasn't under oath but he lied again last Friday with no problem and you do wonder if he'd lie about anything. Seems likely to me because he used his position fraudulently to bring the woman nearby and keep it covered up what he was doing. At that point, we don't have to question his ethics, we know. At least Clinton didn't do that. He just took advantage of someone already there
I don't care about anyone's sex life as long as they're honest about it. It does bother me when our politicians lie about it because it means they would be capable of lying about anything, but then most of them do just that anyway and I don't think very many of them have a squeaky clean record. Of course, it could be that I'm just cynical.
Wonderful reflections!It just amazes me that so many politicians and preachers who really work hard fowl up by having sex outside of marriage and then fowl up even more by hiding the truth. It appears so stupid. Or it could be we have expectations beyond what is humanly possible. Politicians subject themselves to personality abuses that beat up their egos and they need a fix. Call it something with emotional zap like narcisissism. I just can't see why avoiding promiscuity would be difficult unless there is a pathological reason.
Now not all sex outside of marriage is the same as that of a politician nor public figure. An ordinary commoner may only be empowered by promiscuous sex but a public figure knows he could be hurting his public life.
I'm finally reading your blog again after my few week hiatus--and I've come back to a block buster. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as we hear all the time. It is nearly impossible to be a powerful male and not to take advantage of the hovering women, or so it seems. Look at all the rock stars, the movie stars, the business tycoons, and the politicians--worldwide. As for fidelity in marriage, it's pretty rare these days as far as I can tell. It's the lying and what you call narcissism, and Darlene calls hypocrisy, that get me.
I did vote for Edwards in the primary, but I voted on the issues or at least I thought I did. I knew I was pouring my vote down a rat hole. Thanks for that link to Maureen Dowd.
I was an Edwards' supporter, and I feel betrayed by his narcissism. His little fling with that empty-headed egotistical woman could potentially cost the Democrats the White House. The media is quite adept at linking all Democrats, and using a very broad brush to do so.
Beautiful images. On our recent road trip I noticed reflections in roadside mirages. I wish I could have photographed it. How much like Edwards is a reflection in a mirage?
Post a Comment