Many wielders of power and wealth have an admonishable affinity to promiscuity. This is, of course, not to say that every leader will cheat on his spouse. Yet, the patterns of infidelity are hard to ignore. Psychologists have largely suggested two differing explanations, both of which center around the expansive personality type: Do these men cheat because of the psychological stature which their office or station imparts? Or do these men cheat because their personalities, which lend themselves well to leadership, precipitate their behavior?

The answer is not clear and, in my opinion, matters less in the normative conversation about leadership and infidelity. Psychologists in public media spaces continue to harp on the nature of a leader's infidelity and thereby imply a certain lack of responsibility on the part of the man of power himself. A psychological predisposition, however garnered, is no excuse for infidelity. It is as if we are, with slight of hand, loaning adulterous behavior a version of the insanity plea.

It has been seriously suggested that the public should not care about what is supposedly a personal matter. Perhaps there is some truth to this. The French and Italians seem somehow less perturbed by their leaders' acts of intimate disrepute. Moreover, a leaders' sexual prowess – outside of his established marriage – is said to indicate his strength as a leader. The wife of former IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn stood by her husband through accusations of sexual assault brought against him.

I certainly see some merit in what is essentially a Freudian line of thinking. How much do we value a public display of implicit sexuality as a suggestion of leadership qualities? The Puritans would surely frown. In the United States during the last two decades, infidelity committed by political leaders has in almost every case been coupled with deception. Perhaps the lies are more harmful to a politician's image and standing than the promiscuity itself.

But "So what? Who cares?" cannot validate a situation wherein a politician's sordid behavior explicitly defies his values and policies. Newt Gingrich asked his second wife for an open marriage; he wanted to have his piece of cake and a second one too, only to eat the whole thing, all the while preaching on the deadly sin of gluttony. More to the point, Gingrich cites the institution of marriage as being the sacred unity between one man and one woman as justification against legalizing same-sex marriage, even as his convictions persuaded him to move through wives like I would buy coats. Gingrich oozes a hypocritical pus that alone exceeds wormwood in bitterness.

Gingrich has the audacity to correlate homosexuality with paganism. His "open marriage" is euphemistic speech for "gentle polygamy" – which just happens to be a pagan practice. Perhaps Gingrich looks to the Old Testament wherein several men had multiple wives. The Old Testament also contains the Ten Commandments. Oh well. Perhaps voters will be drawn to his endearingly blithe indifference to "Do not commit adultery."

It is because of men like Newt Gingrich that I stagger in disbelief and cannot help but care. I cannot help but look at his personal actions alongside his political outlooks and cringe. Newt Gingrich never had my vote, but by behaving in a manner that clearly suggests a lack of critical insight, he should have no one's vote. However, I would side with the French, and let our leaders have their public and private lives distinctly drawn; I would prefer not to care how many times a politician falls in and out of love.

Christian Bagrow FCRH ‘15 is a double major in art history and political science from Jacksonville, Fla.