Nearly a decade after the circus, the finale has finally come full circle. Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair while at the forefront of the impeachment drive against President Clinton! What more can possibly reveal the utter bankruptcy of the entire soap opera? Several words must immediately come to mind for former supporters: betrayal, audacity’mdash;above all, hypocrisy.
But before we all follow our emotions onto the anti-Gingrich bandwagon, it is worth rationally evaluating the issue. After all, Jerry Falwell has already done so. After hearing Gingrich’s confession this past week during a broadcast interview with James Dobson, where he admitted that there have been ‘times when I’ve fallen short of God’s standards,’ Falwell has remarkably forgiven the former Speaker of the House.
It is truly incomprehensible, some might even say miraculous, that an anti-adultery crusader like Falwell would be so quick to pardon the transgressions of such a public figure. The reverend’s explanation that he can intuitively discern a man who is honestly seeking forgiveness and that ‘my sense tells me that Mr. Gingrich is such a man,’ is hardly convincing. Indeed, the only conclusion that can actually make sense of this seeming paradox is truly revealing: Jerry Falwell, unlike many Americans, understands the poverty of ‘ad hominem politics.’
This proposition is both simple and worth reiterating. Ad hominem reasoning occurs when appeals are made to the character of the arguer rather than the reason of the argument. Similarly, ‘ad hominem politics’ refers to the process of appealing to personal issues concerning the politician rather than the validity of their policies.
If Gingrich’s newfound disrepute conveys any lesson to the insightful observer, it should prove that the road of ad hominem politics is a dead end. Clinton’s policies were either to be supported or opposed’mdash;and there was certainly plenty to oppose, notably actions in Somalia, Serbia, Sudan, Iraq, etc. But in this case, were all the facts known, the practitioner of ad hominem politics would’ve been webbed in a giant contradiction, forced to oppose Clinton because of personal matters, yet simultaneously forced to oppose the motion for his removal because its leading character displayed the same personal disposition.
Thus, for effective and consistent political action, a great line must be drawn between the personal character of politicians and their policies. Failure to do this could result in New Democrats fighting against their own platform by opposing Clinton, just as a conservative may now end up opposing the conservative movement by withdrawing support from Gingrich (though, it must be said, the more that do so the better!). In short, the pursuit of ad hominem politics can and often will lead away from effective political action and into self-defeating contradictions.
Jerry Falwell obviously understands this. Newt Gingrich is a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2008, and his policies and stances largely coincide with the worldview of Falwell. This being the case, Falwell can either brush aside these personal irrelevancies and ‘forgive’ Gingrich, or he can condemn him for his personal defects and endorse the personally congenial candidate, be it Giuliani, Romney, McCain or even a Democrat! The latter option would be following ad hominem politics, and it would undermine the viability of Falwell’s ultimate political goals; unfortunately for society at large, he has with good reason chosen the former.
While it has been beneficial to illustrate ad hominem politics by focusing on Clinton and Gingrich, it should by no means be implicated that this plague is confined to these two men or even to recent times. A reliance on ad hominem politics has a long and consistent history in this country. It’s as American as, say, apple pie, foreign aggression or genocide; take your pick. Back in the 1800s, the writer Henry Adams noted about elections that ‘we are afraid to discuss [real issues]. Instead of this the press is engaged in a most amusing dispute whether Mr. Cleveland had an illegitimate child and did or did not live with more than one mistress.’
Already for the 2008 elections, such ‘most amusing disputes’ have begun to take the place of substantial policy debate. Whether Barack Obama’s ancestors owned slaves, if he used hard drugs as a youth, whether Hillary should’ve divorced Bill and the increasing allegations of her supposed lesbianism’mdash;all of this lends itself to ad hominem politics and away from effective political action. Anyone who earnestly wants to further their political aims in society must above all learn to look beyond personal irrelevancies and judge issues by their content. If Jerry Falwell can figure it out, so should you.
Other Knauss Favorites:
Ignorance is Bliss for UT Students
Knauss Joins the War on Terror
Lap Dances: Not Just a Good Idea, It’s the Law
Bayoumi Elaborates on ‘Disco Inferno’
Pinko Columnist Obtains Pinko Bag During Harrods Shopping Spree