This mornings New York Times has an article about the Vitter story, and one of the interesting aspects is that Vitter is Guiliani's Southern campaign chairman. Guiliani is quoted in the article as saying that he believes Vitter's situation is "a personal issue." I couldn't disagree more. If Vitter were a staunch advocate of sex worker rights and nonmonogamous marriage, then this would be a different story. But instead his actions demonstrate that he is not willing to live by the laws that he advocates, and that is definitely a matter of public interest for those of us who elect lawmakers. One important criteria that I have in thinking about electing lawmakers is this: Will this person advocate for laws that I can live with. If a person doesn't even advocate for laws that he or she can live with, there is a major breach of credibility. A quote from the Times article linked above:

Through it all, Mr. Vitter’s consistent themes have been family values, morality and ethics — his own, in contrast to what he has depicted as deficiencies in the local political culture. In Louisiana, where the well-documented infidelities of the onetime governor Edwin W. Edwards were all but a political asset, Mr. Vitter could easily survive any disclosure about adultery. Insincerity, however, is another matter.

If we assert that because something is sexual or personal that it cannot also be political, we deny the public a chance to know the sincerity of the people they elect to make laws that will restrict or expand their freedoms. 

How Vitter and his family cope with his behavior is a personal matter. Whether Vitter, or any lawmaker, is willing to live by the laws he advocates? That is absolutely a public matter!

 

__________________________

...because public space really matters!

Elizabeth