A week ago, I wrote about Fox News psychiatrist Keith Ablow and his partially dubious claim that binge drinking statistics prove we’re becoming “a nation of drunks.”
I will tell you what Mr. Gingrich’s personal history actually means for those of us who want to right the economy, see our neighbors and friends go back to work, promote freedom here and abroad and defeat the growing threat posed by Iran and other evil regimes.
First, one note on what Mr. Gingrich’s married life, including his history of infidelity does not mean: It does not mean that Mr. Gingrich would be unfaithful to the United States of America or the Constitution of the United States.
You can take any moral position you like about men and women who cheat while married, but there simply is no correlation, whatsoever—from a psychological perspective—between whether they can remain true to their wedding vows and whether they can remain true to the Oath of Office.
I want to be coldly analytical, not moralize, here. I want to tell you what Mr. Gingrich’s behavior could mean for the country, not for the future of his current marriage. So, here’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.
Well, Gingrich’s opponent during the 1990s, President Bill Clinton, apparently was able to use “his emotional energy and intellect” to similarly “move” women to whom he was not married as well.
During the attempt to impeach Clinton in the late 1990s, I wrote that if someone was willing to violate vows made before God, his spouse and the community, one should wonder what other vows he’d be willing to violate as well. The question still bears asking with Gingrich, who, let’s remember, cheated on his first wife with a woman who he married and then cheated on with the woman who became his third wife. (Hard to follow, isn’t it?)
I have no idea, nor do I particularly care, about what went on to dissolve marriages one and two. That’s Gingrich’s problem. But Ablow claims “no correlation, whatsoever—from a psychological perspective—between whether they can remain true to their wedding vows and whether they can remain true to the Oath of Office” while presenting no evidence to support his assertion. And whether voters can trust Gingrich is certainly Gingrich’s problem.
Ablow wants us to believe that Gingrich may be the man to lead our country based on this:
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.
Conclusion: Ablow is channeling his inner Oprah Winfrey in writing this bilge. The next time I see a Corvette, perhaps I should follow my heart and steal it, because I really want a Corvette. That is the same line of reasoning Ablow wants us to buy with Gingrich.