Rachel Maddow argued that Herman Cain’s 13-year affair is politically relevant because Cain is a self-appointed defender of traditional marriage in his political life:
To be fair, I think the reason this latest allegation about Mr. Cain is news is not because this allegation is that he’s done something illegal or even because it’s anyone’s business what any two adults do inside or outside the bounds of their own marriage. Private life is private life, even for public figures. Unless those public figures choose to build their political careers on criticizing other people’s private lives and proclaiming the superiority of their own private life. In the case of Mr. Cain, he has campaigned for office by saying that he will “defend the sacred institution of marriage against liberals who want to destroy it.” Because of that, Mr. Cain now has a sacred-institution glass house problem.
Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple registers an odd objection to Maddow’s line of reasoning:
That may be something of an exaggeration, but the fabric of Maddow’s argument has a stretchy feel to it. The Cain statement cited in her monologue appears to concern marriage as a compact between a man and a woman, period. As in, no gay marriage. It’s far more of an anti-gay plank, accordingly, than it is pro-fidelity. If someone were to come forward with allegations that Cain was gay, in other words, his position on marriage would serve as a far more powerful basis for broadcasting that story. [Emphasis added.]
What, now? According to Wemple a hypothetical gay affair would be relevant, but a straight affair is not. But, as Wemple pointed out, Cain is a self-appointed defender of marriage between a man and a woman. Keeping a mistress for 13 years falls squarely outside his politically charged definition of traditional marriage.
Point: Maddow.
I hope you found this article important. Before you leave, I want to ask you to consider supporting our work with a donation. In These Times needs readers like you to help sustain our mission. We don’t depend on—or want—corporate advertising or deep-pocketed billionaires to fund our journalism. We’re supported by you, the reader, so we can focus on covering the issues that matter most to the progressive movement without fear or compromise.
Our work isn’t hidden behind a paywall because of people like you who support our journalism. We want to keep it that way. If you value the work we do and the movements we cover, please consider donating to In These Times.
