Why morals matter in one race for the White House

We all know everyone’s tired of the “Grand Ole Party” conversation. The New York Times pitied the state of South Carolina on Friday, saying, “Not even the dead can find sanctuary from the bombardment of political messages that has hit the state with a fury.”

The Republican Party has willingly taken the conservative label, and in doing so has taken in the considerations of American conservatives. “Family values” and “Christian morals” (whatever those mean) have become part of their appeal.

Yet as the war between Republicans wages on, the mudslinging tactics have become consistently more personal, and they are starting to pick up mud without checking for rocks. We have already seen one candidate drop out because of the dirt dug up on him and his “extramarital affairs,” and every week we are given another piece of a candidate’s morally degrading past to digest.

But with increased publicity of personal affairs, it makes us question how large of a role morality should play in the 2012 election.

This is a pivotal election for the United States. Unemployment rates, national debt, the war on terrorism and environmental issues alone provide enough for these candidates to converse over for hours. Yet the most popular clip from the latest debate in South Carolina is one of Newt Gingrich berating the media for their irrelevant interest in his personal life.

And he has a point. The presidential election should be determined by the candidates’ ability to fulfill the responsibilities required of the President, not how faithful he is to his wife.

The various roles of a President (Chief Administrator, Head of State, Diplomat, Commander in Chief, etc.) require an understanding of the economy, diplomatic affairs and experience in politics – all of which Newt Gingrich and the remaining GOP candidates have.

But ultimately the job of the President is to make decisions representing the United States of America. And it’s in Gingrich’s decision-making where I question his, as well as others’, ability to run this nation.

Gingrich has been labeled a hypocrite for signing a Marriage Fidelity pledge while having notorious extramarital affairs. While Speaker of the House, he was fined $300,000 in fines for ethical wrongdoing. Romney isn’t the shining pupil either, releasing tax returns showing a lower tax rate than some middle-class families, despite his multi-million-dollar bank account.

Politics is wrought with questionable characters, and we’ve accepted the cheating politician as simply a politician. It’s an American cliché.

That’s a problem.

In the same society in which a red solo cup in your profile picture can be the deciding factor in a post-college job hunt, how are we still considering a presidential candidate who has repeatedly been caught with his hands in the cookie jar?

To say morals do not play a part in politics is a convenient lie to our subconscious. We are electing someone to represent our nation, make decisions for us and lead our nation to become a better one – of course morals matter. The decisions made in someone’s personal life reflect their priorities.

Marriage is “for better or for worse,” and many refer to their spouse as their best friend. If Newt Gingrich is okay with lying to his spouse, what will stop him from lying to a group of Americans he has never met?

If Ron Paul weren’t 75 years old and had a legitimate chance at winning the Republican nomination, I wouldn’t be writing this column. But, unfortunately, the Republican Party is digging out mud from underneath them, creating a larger and larger sinkhole to climb their way out of. And the weaker they become, the stronger their Democratic opponent looks.

As of right now, Obama is looking more like the teacher’s pet, after almost four questionable years in office, than these GOP candidates look after one week of tabloid-type news.

SoRelle Wyckoff is the opinions editor of The Crimson White.