Feingold's Presidential Prospects in Light of His Two Divorces

Ann Althouse cites the generally uninteresting and uninformative answers given by Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold in a GQ interview. Althouse compares his responses to those of a kid when asked, "How was school today?"

Near the end of her post, she cites the exchange between the interviewer and Feingold on the impact his two divorces might have on his 2008 presidential prospects. The interview is in bold, Althouse's comments not:

[GQ:] Let’s talk about this twice-divorced thing.

[RF:] Sure.

[GQ:] How much of a political liability do you think it will be?

[RF:] I have no idea. If it is, so be it. That’s up to the people to decide.

What can he say? It is what it is. Which is, obviously a big political liability.

[GQ:] What’s it like to be a single senator?

[RF:] It’s new to me. You sort of end up working a whole lot. There’s a tendency to let the time get ?lled up. So I’ve been very careful—

[GQ:] So you’ve become less social?

[RF:] No, probably more social, in the sense that because you don’t have a spouse—see, when you’re married, you really feel an obligation to spend all that available time with your spouse if you can. I’m able to spend more time with more people now. I’m reconnecting with a lot of people and old friends.

[GQ:] Dating?

[RF:] Um, that’s, uh, classi?ed?

[GQ:] Are there women throwing themselves at you?

[RF:] I certainly wouldn’t say that. [smiles] I’m not gonna say that.

[GQ:] You know, there’ve been some legendary single senators.

[RF:] Yeah, I know. I’m not aspiring to be in that hall of fame.

You're not going to get anything good out of him on questions like that, but his initial response was telling. He just plunges himself into work. Or is that what he's always done -- which could explain two divorces. Note how he reacted to the question "So you’ve become less social?" I think that was purely political. His answer to the previous question may have been quite honest. That "less social" question, though, set off an alarm and he rushed to protect himself. No way does he want to be perceived as a reclusive loner. Obviously, he's got to put a lot of thought into how to present himself with questions like this if he's going to run for President.

My thoughts:

It's difficult to know what impact divorce has on people's presidential prospects these days.

Nelson Rockefeller's very public divorce and rapid remarriage seemed to decimate his chances of nomination by the Republicans in 1964.

Yet, four years later, the divorced Ronald Reagan was a viable contender for the nomination. But by that time, he and wife Nancy had been married for some time. The circumstances of his divorce and remarriage [awhile] later were very different from those surrounding Rockefeller.

My guess is that divorce is only a liability to a candidate if it appears she or he has taken a cavalier attitude about [marriage] and learned nothing or matured little in the intervening time. (How one explains Bill Clinton's ability to pass muster with voters on this score is a little beyond me. But then, if you look up Clinton in the dictionary, the definition is "anomaly." And, of course, in spite of their problems, the Clintons have stuck with each other through thick, thin, and thin.)

Feingold is in much the same position as Newt Gingrich, both multiply divorced. (And of course, in Gingrich's case, there have been allegations that he was particularly cavalier about both the marriages and the divorces.)

The bottom line, I suppose is that voters are interested in candidates' personal lives to the extent that they display patterns of thinking and behaving that give clues about maturity, judgment, and trustworthiness.

As increasing numbers of Americans themselves experience divorce, there will be increasing acceptance of candidates who have been divorced. Beside Reagan, several recent major party nominees have been divorced and remarried; Bob Dole and John Kerry both fit in this category.

I think it's good that Americans appear to have eschewed the legalism that once prevented a divorced person from being seriously considered for the presidency.

But if a multiply divorced person's past gives indications of untrustworthiness, immaturity, or poor judgment, voters may decide against that person as presidential material.

Of course, none of this says anything about Feingold's prospects based on political issues, apart from personal questions.

[Thanks to Article6Blog for linking to this post.]