Steve Gunn: What should disqualify a candidate from seeking the presidency?

Follow on Twitter
on November 03, 2011 at 7:50 AM, updated November 03, 2011 at 9:09 AM
steve-gunn80.jpgSteve Gunn

The news that shook the presidential race broke last weekend: Herman Cain, the surprising frontrunner in some Republican national polls, is indeed a human being.

Just like Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Bill Clinton were human beings. And each of them had a problem, to varying degrees, with keeping their pants on in the company of women.

Given the incredible amount of talent on the list above, I would say Cain is in pretty good company.

He's been accused of sexually harassing two women sometime back in the 1990s, when he was president of the National Restaurant Association.

I'm not sure what "sexual harassment" means in this instance, because I've yet to find a detailed account of the accusations. I'm certainly not going to excuse that type of behavior. At best it can be annoying and offensive to victims, and at worst it can be a crime.

But I also know that people sometimes make up stories to hurt those they don't like, particularly in the workplace. If Cain's actions had been so hideous that they crossed the criminal line, I have to believe the police would have been involved.

I also think Cain's alleged victims, whoever they are, would have more credibility if they had stood their ground and demanded a full criminal investigation, rather than taking the money and shutting up. I would also guess, if Cain were a chronic sexual harasser, other instances would have come to light since the 1990s.

But none of that seems to matter in the current media frenzy. The only question the pundits are asking is "Can the Cain campaign survive this?" It's a silly game called Politics American Style.

Whether he's guilty or not, Cain can argue that he's just the latest victim of a hyperactive media that sets out to unmask everyone seeking the presidency.

I doubt there have been very many presidential candidates over the years without sin. Humans are humans, and they frequently screw up, particularly when it comes to matters of the flesh.

Does that mean they are incapable of public service and should be disqualified from the presidency? Let's go over a very partial historic list and you decide for yourself.

You can start with Jefferson, who apparently had a long-term sexual relationship and fathered children with a slave he owned in colonial days. If that's not sexual harassment, I don't know what is.

If that news had hit the headlines back in the day, we might have had a different third president. And that president may not have completed the purchase of the huge Louisiana territory from France, and we might have been a much smaller nation today.

Fast forward to the 20th century, and the man some believe was the greatest president of all time. FDR had a long-term relationship with a woman who was not his wife, and his wife knew about it for years.

If the press had reported it, someone else might have been guiding us through the challenges of the Great Depression and World War II. How would things have turned out in those circumstances?

Eisenhower had a girlfriend in Europe during World War II while his wife sat home. Kennedy pretty much slept with everyone under the sun. Warren Harding, a less famous president, was known for sneaking prostitutes into the White House and meeting them in janitorial closets.

As much as I hate to mention him for any reason, we also have to consider Bill Clinton. He was sued for sexual harassment while he was in the White House. He took sexual advantage of a very young White House intern while his wife was yards away.

Many Democrats insist, despite all of this, that Clinton was a quality president. He wasn't denied the White House, even though his sexual habits were well documented long before he got there.

And then there's Dr. King. While he wasn't a politician, he was without argument one of the greatest and most influential leaders of the 20th century. From everything I've read, he also had relations with women other than his wife long after he was married.

If that had come to light in the media, would King have been kicked to the sidelines of the Civil Rights movement? If so, would the movement have been so successful?

The point is, that if we're looking for the perfect human being to lead us, we're going to be looking forever. Of course personal character matters, and must be considered during a presidential campaign. But we should be careful to weigh everything we know about candidates — good and bad — before throwing them under the bus because of their private affairs.

If we judge too harshly and too quickly, we might be denying ourselves the kind of great leadership that every generation desires and needs.
