SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Defending Newt (Sort Of)

TIMOTHY NOAH JANUARY 20, 2012

Defending Newt (Sort Of)

BY TIMOTHY NOAH

We knew that Newt Gingrich was an adulterer (he eventually married his mistress). Why does it make it worse that he wanted an "open marriage"?

Marianne Gingrich, Newt's second of three wives, told ABC News that when she learned Newt was having an affair, he said, " 'You want me all to yourself. Callista doesn't care what I do.'... He was asking to have an open marriage, and I refused." An open marriage, Marianne said, "is not a marriage."

Most people would judge Gingrich harshly for saying what Marianne said he said. To have an affair is bad; to tell your wife when she finds out about it that you want an open marriage is worse. Gingrich, by denying it so emphatically at last night's GOP debate ("Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false") demonstrated that he, too, thinks that it's worse. But why is it worse? 

Logically speaking, there are two ways to commit adultery. One way--the path favored by most people--is to hide your adulterous relationship from your wife or husband, which usually involves some lying. The other way--the path Marianne says Newt proposed after his affair came to light--is to have your affair out in the open. This is not unheard of, even in straight-laced Washington. For years, Joan Braden, wife of the political columnist Tom Braden (author of Eight Is Enough, a whimsical family memoir later turned into a TV series, and Pat Buchanan's original partner on Crossfire) openly carried out a romantic relationship with Robert McNamara. (He was no longer a public official.) She even briefly shopped a memoir that recounted this and other dalliances until she was shamed into withdrawing it. There is no possibility that Tom Braden (a former CIA official) didn't know. Would it have been more "moral" for Joan to carry out her affair without Tom (or anyone else) finding out?

Many would say that the decent thing to do, once your affair has been exposed, is either to a.) end the affair and patch up the marriage; or b.) divorce the current spouse and marry the lover. Option a.) is preferable, as Ross Douthat will be happy to explain to you at patience-trying length, but only--here's a caveat Douthat would likely reject--if all other things are equal. And in situations like this it's pretty often the case that all other things aren't equal--that matters extraneous to the affair, or emotional fallout from the affair, make it impossible for the marriage to continue. Option b.) likely brings great pain to both parties (probably more to one than the other) and can be brutal on children (of whom Newt and Marianne had none). But society deems it an acceptable option, and whatever taboo attached to it in politics was removed with the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, our first divorced president. It's even OK, most people would agree (though probably not Douthat), to modify option b.) by declining to marry your lover (who may not be the marrying kind) and either living alone or finding a third person with whom to have a romantic relationship.

According to Marianne, Newt was proposing an option c.): I screw around, you screw around, we both know, but we share the same roof and eat dinner together. If all three parties agree to it, what business is it of anyone else's? From a utilitarian point of view, this is hard to argue with, and during the 1970s a lot of people argued for it. So why are even cosmopolitan people now appalled? Certainly the sexual utopianism of the 1970s was extremely naive about most people's emotional sensitivity to sexual infidelity. Open marriage sounded great in theory but in practice it wrought terrible damage on the married parties, their families, and even conceivably on their friends. Like a lot of cultural changes contemplated in the 1970s, it was too good to be true. But that isn't really a moral argument against open marriage so much as a psychological one. Why, then, do we think Newt's purported eagerness to contemplate open marriage is so appalling? Because it makes him seem unstable? Abnormally inured to emotional pain? Too willing to pledge his loyalty in too many conflicting directions? Get real. We already know he's all three. We don't need to go poking around his sex life to learn that.

No, I think the real reason Marianne's accusation has the power to shock has nothing to do with morality. I think it shocks because it forces you to contemplate Newt Gingrich having sex. The standard response I've heard to the news is, "Ugh, the idea of Gingrich rutting is putting me off my lunch." Why the phrase "open marriage" should have the power to do this I don't know, but it's probably because it conjures up vivid collective mental images of the 1970s and 1980s--open-shirted swingers with too-wide lapels trekking to Plato's Retreat and then sweatily discussing the experience on late-night cable television, Jackie O. being photographed going in to see I Am Curious Yellow, etc., etc.--that a lot of us, even people who weren't alive at the time, would like to forget. The swinger subculture continues to linger but eventually it had the good sense to go underground. To most people (probably even many who participate in it) it's creepy and embarrassing. Plug into this collective set of mental images a chubby, white-haired, ludicrously self-assured politician and it graduates from skeevy to repulsive.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 34 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

34 comments

Good ol' Newt - the ugliest man in American politics.

- Bukharin

January 20, 2012 at 3:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LOLOL. Love the imagery, Tim. Now excuse me while I go bleach my eyeballs.

- Tristan

January 20, 2012 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Reminds me of having to look at Donald Sutherland's back side in Animal House. In fact Newt reminds me of that character

- stanmvp48

January 20, 2012 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But that isn't really a moral argument against open marriage so much as a psychological one." Think about this sentence for a minute and I think (or hope) you'll see why it's ridiculous. Psychological damage isn't morally offensive? C'mon.

- timteeter

January 20, 2012 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Instead of pushing healthy foods and exercise, I think that Michelle Obama should simply ask America's children to visualize a threesome between Newt, Marianne and Calista. That would cure them of any desire to eat for the foreseeable future.

- wildboy

January 20, 2012 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"[A] lot of us, even people who weren't alive at the time, would like to forget". Who is this us? Noah isn't newly hatched. If I have vivid memories of the 1970s, he does too. Bashing baby boomers is accepted sport, the most famous blogger being by far the most frequent, and harshest, basher. What Noah is suggesting is the identity of The Newt with "us". Clinton, the rogue that he is, was bad enough. But The Newt? He is the best "us" has to offer?

- rayward

January 20, 2012 at 3:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just ate a little while ago and you almost caused me to lose my lunch, wild.

- liberalref

January 20, 2012 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He just wanted to be someone else's husband for three hours a day so he could learn how to be a husband.

- Nusholtz

January 20, 2012 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hope everyone on here understands he wasn't lobbying his wife for adulterous priviledges; he was merely acting as a historian and advising her of what had taken place behind her back for so long.

- Tristan

January 20, 2012 at 4:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While I know this post is just an excuse for snarking, may I suggest that the real jab was aimed at Callista. The country is upset that the current first lady may not be up to the job because she shows too much flesh on her arms. What then to think of a first lady who is up to any sexual shenanigans? BTW, while it is now acceptable in most circles that a politician has been divorced, he or she must admit to 'mistakes' and now be married to his or her 'true love'. That Newt may have ditched Marianne because she was not quite as accomodating as his present wife is still considered a fault in those circles.

- polijunky

January 20, 2012 at 4:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem with the frankness of it is not simply the explicitness of his disavowal of "traditional marriage". It contradicts the excuses people make for Newt and that he implicitly makes for himself. The deception in these affairs isn't usually just of the spouse, but one is often deceiving onesself. There are a variety of ways; stuck in an uhappy marriage, one doesn't want to hurt one's spouse with the knowledge or humiliate them, the soulmate is the one one isn't married to but one can't leave the spouse, or simply a weak will where one falls, repeatedly to temptation that one keeps trying to resist. The frankness with which Newt wanted the cake and eating of it suggests something reptilian wherein he knew exactly what he was doing, and was trying to get all of the benefits of remaining married to Marianne with none of the costs. He wasn't weak or in error or misguided, or trying to protect the feelings of another. He wanted what he wanted, without inconvenience or cost.

- miceelf

January 20, 2012 at 4:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am trying to picture Calista as First Lady. What do you suppose her adopted cause will be?

- stanmvp48

January 20, 2012 at 4:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was in the back of the room in a meeting and almost laughed out loud when I got to the punch line. But being serious for a moment... The thing that I find objectionable about Newt's behavior here is the attempt to change the rules when he got caught breaking them. Aside from the awful visual imagery, I wouldn't object if Newt & Marianne's marriage had included an agreement up front to allow mutual infidelity. But most marriages start from an expectation of faithfulness. To get caught violating that expectation and then ask to reset the terms is utterly dishonorable.

- ramcat

January 20, 2012 at 4:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Stan: STDs?

- Tristan

January 20, 2012 at 4:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My wife is Chinese and 100 years ago men had many wives so I have tried explaining to her how my having concubines is my way of embracing her Chinese cultural heritage, but she ain't buying it. I would agree with one thing, if my wife were truly unhappy I would want her to come forward and tell me, and if she suggested we have an open marriage from then on (but not having cheated before) I would think she were nuts but would appreciate her honesty. I don't want to find out she had been cheating on me for years, that maybe my kids are not my kids, but hey, she is willing to allow me to stay in the house watching the kids while she goes out and has fun. It is the sheer chutzpah of Newt, and lets be honest, we all know full well that Newt thinks he is entitled to do what he wants whenever he wants and wants to be acknowledged as being great while doing it. The man is a full on piece of excrement. "this is hard to argue with, and during the 1970s a lot of people argued for it." Yeah, but Newt advocated for this in the 1990's, not 70's. STD's and Aids should be enough to put anyone off of serial sex. And he advocated for it while lambasting Bill Clinton for it. As far as "mistakes" go, my looking at a hot woman while I am with my wife is a "mistake" because it is rude and disrespectful to my wife but I also think it is something I can and should be forgiven for (and to remind myself that this is why God invented sunglasses) what Newt has done is far worse and I think does disqualify him from the Presidency. He is a low down lying snake in the grass with a monstrous ego. But I still hope he wins the nomination so Obama can win all 50 states.

- blackton

January 20, 2012 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It doesn't change my view of Newt at all, because I already knew he was a complete dick. But for the less informed voter, it forces them to confront what Newt actually did without any "mistakes were made" gauze to obscure it.

- JEFF FREY

January 20, 2012 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If he was nominated, Newt would carry most of the South and Appalachia. There won't be a 50 state landslide for a black guy, at least not in this decade.

- JEFF FREY

January 20, 2012 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just find someone preaching the sanctity of wedlock and virulent hatred of the 60s counterculture while appealing to his wife for an open marriage on the grounds of a formerly secret affair with another woman is repellent in the extreme. It almost gives hypocrisy a bad name. Nothing against monogamy -- clearly it's what most people want, or say they want -- but most people who genuinely BELIEVE more open relationships are possible also see such freedom as requiring honesty and openness, and not cheating and grubby secrecy. Oh, and please please please please please please please please please please let Gingrich get the nomination. But it won't happen.

- ironyroad

January 20, 2012 at 5:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wonder if Callista still doesn't care what Newt "do."

- Bukharin

January 20, 2012 at 5:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tris and stan: Marriage fidelity?

- liberalref

January 20, 2012 at 5:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is adultery necessarily immoral? I can imagine any number of scenarios where it wouldn't be, spouse sick, spouse consents, bad marriage but good for children. So it's not. But at this level of politics, exquisite moral analyses, or less than exquisite ones, are beside the point. What rules at this level of politics- a mugs' game if there ever was one, platitudes and sentimentality rule. So while one might analyze the moral differences between different adulterous scenarios in different circumstances, applying any level of subtle analysis to the issue in the context of American national politics where candidates must appear to be as squeaky clean as possible oR else prostrate themselves in supplication for forgiveness or bracket past personal wrong doing so as to render it irrelevant--happened so long ago or whatever--seems entirely inapposite. Which is not to say Gingrich isn't a scum bag, which noun, when understood in its literal meaning, only begins to do justice to the man.

- basman

January 20, 2012 at 7:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Dan Savage made the key point about Newt: the "open marriage" proposal was a load of crap. He was cheating on his wife for years, she found out, so he asked her to keep it quiet and not divorce him in order to preserve his political viability. There was nothing honest about it.

- gdhorowitz

January 20, 2012 at 8:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

01/20/2012 - 8:56pm EDT | gdhorowitz Gdhorowitz are you the G Horowitz who teaches political science at the U of T?

- basman

January 20, 2012 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Alas, no, basman. Not a professor at all. There is a philosophy professor out there who shares my name. When I was in grad school I got an invitation meant for him to speak at a conference in Europe. Almost accepted.

- gdhorowitz

January 20, 2012 at 11:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In the Naples museum there is a wonderful Latin inscription by some late antique Roman aristocrat dedicated to, among others, both his wife and his concubine. Newt's behavior is merely in keeping with his deep desire to preserve the great traditions of western civilization.

- timteeter

January 20, 2012 at 11:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for answering. The G Horowitz I had in mind was a great friend of my older brother in Winnipeg Manitoba who then went on to do his Phd at Harvard in political science.

- basman

January 21, 2012 at 12:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To me it has nothing to do with sexual imagery and I find myself disagreeing with the analysis of the morality of open marriage. To me the problem is Newt's brazen selfishness. When you cheat on someone, most of the time you injure them. When you get caught, it's time to do the right thing one way or another. At the very least you should apologize and show some contrition. Newt chose to propose the solution more convenient to him, a solution he likely knew it would be rejected. Implicit in this offer is Newt's attitude towards his ex-wife: Screw you, I don't care if your feelings are hurt or if I am tumbling on them. A proposal of open marriage could be argued as moral if it's proposed in advance. Not post-facto and once you did what you did.

- Hobbes

January 21, 2012 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"A proposal of open marriage could be argued as moral if it's proposed in advance. Not post-facto and once you did what you did." Agreed -- as an option "c" for after you've been caught, it's pretty crappy. Let's send Newt a gift copy of Easton and Liszt's "The Ethical Slut."

- frippo

January 22, 2012 at 2:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He wouldn't be able to make head or tail of it. I think too that one important aspect here is that Newt and a lot of folks are ok with sexual freedom for men, provided they check the boxes as conservative in the other departments, but far less so for women.

- ironyroad

January 22, 2012 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not me, I'm an equal sexual opportunity prosletyzer.

- basman

January 22, 2012 at 7:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I know you are, basman, and that's the main reason the Republican Party will not turn to you in its hour of need, when it needs a convincing presidential candidate. It's cruel of me to lay it out so plainly, but later you'll thank me for telling the truth. The main reason other than your being Canadian, of course.

- ironyroad

January 22, 2012 at 9:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are a couple of things that just strike me as completely wrong about Newt. Of course there is the obvious brazenness of his hypocrisy and repeated asks for "forgiveness" when it comes to his immorality. This sort of "redemptive" forgiveness does not apply to others however and especially not to Obama, whose youthful indiscretions should still be mined for clues to his radicalization as a crypto-commie-fascist, social-welfare enabling, Muslim-loving crony capitalist banking shill. Maybe South Carolinians can look past his 3 marriages and forgive him his trespasses because he's a reformed/reborn Catholic. Although I take his piousness for what it's worth, which is zip because he continues to be a tasteless individual. But what do these Bible-thumping, God-fearin' America-loving people make of Callista? Will they approve of her home-making..err wrecking, skills that are required of First Ladies to the White House?

- singlspeed

January 23, 2012 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, no, no, people! Your understanding is inadequate! Heed Fox News: "Fox News Medical A-Team" Dr. Keith Ablow analyzes Newt's marital history: [H]ere’s what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude—psychologically—from Mr. Gingrich’s behavior during his three marriages: 1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him. 2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married. 3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible. Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one. 4) Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation. Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.

- NR141480

January 23, 2012 at 1:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does this mean Newt will ask to for an open marriage with ideologically ego-aligned narcissistic North Korea once he finds being POTUS isn't as hot and sweaty as he'd like to be?

- singlspeed

January 23, 2012 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close