Stand By Our Man

By Sally Raskoff

Have you noticed that when politicians get into trouble for something they’ve done, more often than not, their wives appear with them for the public apology? This is particularly evident when the trouble is sexual. (Whether the husbands of politicians in trouble would show up isn’t clear since we don’t have as many women in office, let alone getting into trouble.)

Eliot Spitzer, former governor of New York, had his wife by his side when he acknowledged hiring prostitutes. Jim McGreevey, former governor of New Jersey, had his wife by his side when he acknowledged having an affair with a man and that he was gay. Hillary Clinton also appeared on 60 Minutes with her husband during his 1992 campaign for president when he was accused of having an affair.

We hold our elected officials to a very high standard. We require those who hold power in this country to display a “normal” life where they look and behave in accordance with our societal expectations. Historically and even now, most (nationally) elected officials, are male, white, protestant, heterosexual, married, and from the middle/upper class.

When these politicians deviate from these norms, typically through sexual activities with someone other than their wives, we call into question their character, their ability to hold office and to be effective leaders. Especially if politicians do not disclose this information prior to taking office and we find out about it later, they are not likely to keep their position and/or their political aspirations are severely impaired. 

Jim McGreevey and Eliot Spitzer both resigned their governorships. Senator Larry Craig resigned from his committee positions after public disclosure of his legal troubles stemming from public bathroom behaviors with an undercover cop. Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick acknowledged an affair with his female chief of staff (who subsequently resigned), yet faces legal action and may lose his position pending the legal outcome. (Mayor Kilpatrick and President Clinton both faced legal action, not for their infidelity, but for lying under oath. However, their lies were in reference to their sexual liaisons.) Jack Ryan lost his candidacy for Senate in Illinois when his atypical sexual activities were disclosed during divorce proceedings. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa admitted an affair with a reporter and, although he kept his job, his divorce is pending and there is no longer talk of a run for governor.

Looking at these and the many other politicians whose sexual activities have ended or limited their careers, it is fascinating that upon first disclosure, the wives are there for the public apology yet later they may distance and/or divorce themselves from their partner. They stand by their man for the media frenzy yet after the public attention fades, they may not stay with their man.

When the wives appear, it is comforting to the public and reassures us that he may not be all bad since she’s staying with him. When the wife doesn’t appear, as with the L.A. Mayor’s situation, it can signal bigger problems that then may derail the politician’s career entirely.

Erving Goffman’s concepts of Front Stage and Back Stage can be helpful for understanding this dynamic. In this theory, we have front stage behavior to manage what we show to others and back stage behaviors to prepare the front stage and/or to deal with what we really feel or think. Back stage issues may be shared with others or they may play out with the one person alone. 

The politician and his wife have a lot of experience with the front stage; they need to perform their political roles no matter what happens. Back stage is another story. If the politician is having sexual affairs with people other than his spouse, the same may be true for the politician’s wife—although since their back stages are not public, we can speculate but we may never know for sure. In the cases above, we do find this out—yet they are both compelled to maintain the front stage as devoted companion and spouse.

Let’s think about the politicians who have had sexual affairs with other women, those who paid prostitutes for sex, and those who allegedly had affairs with men. 

Both politicians who prefer same-sex partners and their wives might suffer the greatest tension between their front and back stages. They feel that homophobia prohibits them from living their lives “out” and maintain public office. They therefore have to do a lot of back stage work to keep the public (and their wives) from finding out and moving the behavior to the front stage. 

Those who pay prostitutes get into trouble for illegal activity and work to keep this back stage (and from their wives). Politicians who have affairs with other women may keep their office although they may lose their wives. On the other hand, there may not be as large of a difference between what both spouses know back stage. Theirs may be a political marriage in which one or both partners seek any sexual liaisons are sought outside the relationship. 

If, however, sexual behaviors outside marriage or other non-normative behaviors are disclosed before taking office, do the dynamics change? It seems that they may, since then the non-normative behavior is already public, not secret, and not subject to surprise disclosure or legal action (for perjury). 

David Patterson, the new governor of New York, admitted upon Spitzer’s resignation that he and his wife both had affairs, received counseling, and have repaired their marriage. During his first presidential campaign, George W. Bush admitted his alcoholism and many polls found that this increased support for his leadership among some. His drinking and poor grades in college resonated with some and made him seem more accessible to them. 

If politicians admit to non-normative behaviors that are relatively common or otherwise familiar to us before they take office, we may respond by supporting them rather than condemning them. The difference seems to lie in whether or not they have been keeping such information secret or not and just how acceptable such behavior is in the public eye. 

We elect our politicians to use the power we give them wisely and do what we think is right. Thus when they behave outside those expectations, they act in ways to calm our responses, to let us know theirs are problems much like our own. Their front stage presentation is meant to reassure us that they are human and aren’t different from us and/or people we know-and not to question the job they do wielding the power we give them.

What other sociological theories can you apply to these situations of politicians in trouble for sexual activity and the ubiquity of wives standing by the men whom we elect?

Comments

[Pitseleh]

If the wives have connections to others based on being a politician's wife, which I think they would, then identity theory (via Stryker) could have strong implications for why wives stand by their men. If they feel they would lose connections to others (and not just their spouse) if they refuse to stand by him, this theory would suggest that they would. Moreover, I would think that unconditional support of the politician would be a big component of what it means to these women to be a wife. Thus, following identity control theory (Burke)in order to confirm these identities they would act to continue this support. Of course, we don't know what other meanings they have in their wife identities, but this could help explain what is going on.

[Patrick Dacaya]

this is an interesting application to goffman's back/front stage theory as i was learning about it the other week. one of the australian swimmers that was going to be attending the beijing games can;t now because of his past with violence. he didn't admit it before hand and when it came out in the press he is now being condemned for it. this could be another example maybe.