Sex and Politics: Putting "Monkey Business" in the Right Perspective

So Mark Sanford (pictured), Governor of South Carolina and a Republican Presidential hopeful for 2012, has fallen, if not by the wayside, for the wiles of a shady lady from Argentina.

It seems like no time at all since New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, another Republican presidential contender, got stung, this time trading cash for lady’s favours in the time-honoured way of "the oldest profession". Even though Tony Blair’s Ministers, even “Lord Cashpoint” (Lord Levy) of cash-for-honours infamy, was never accused of this, the Sanford case leads me to question our fascination, both in America and Britain, with the ability of our political leaders to remain faithful to their wives and partners.

On this side of the pond, the corridors of Parliament could be lined with names of famous and infamous men caught with “something in the cookie jar”: Profumo, Lambton, Parkinson, Mellor, Amos, Yeo, and Brown, to name only a few Tories, lead a long cast. And in case you think I’m anti-Conservative, let us not forget Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown and Labour's Welshman, Ron Davies.

The Profumo scandal was treated very seriously by the press and the establishment. Questions in the House and the Denning Enquiry followed, but what people remember more than anything was the remark by call girl Mandy Rice-Davies, “Well he would, wouldn’t he?” By the time we reached the 1990s antics of Conservative minister David Mellor, pithy sayings had been replaced by Chelsea football shirts and ridicule.

Sadly, adultery can result in tragedy. During Prime Minister John Major’s time, the Earl of Caithness’s affair resulted in the suicide of his wife. However, most of the time, my fellow-citizens can’t wait to read The News of the World on Sunday mornings to see what the politicians have been up to. When the news of Major’s extra-marital affair with Edwina Currie broke, it was met with, “How could he do it with her?” Having met the lady in question, who remains both attractive and vivacious, I am tempted to ask, “How could she do it with him?” But then I met “him” a few months ago and now fully understand the attraction. He is tall, fit and retains huge magnetism. He is not a grey man at all.

I remember well the morning that Margaret Thatcher's key advisor and Minister, Cecil Parkinson, was outed by Sarah Keays. That day, I had to attend a meeting with the Minister of Tourism of a small African country. During lunch, Parkinson’s name was mentioned. The minister asked what had happened. When given the facts, his attitude was most refreshing: “This man sires a child and he is expected to resign? In my country, everyone would congratulate him!”

Over here, the English Channel separates us from the likes of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who conducted an affair with his present wife during an election campaign. As for the antics of the current Italian leader, Silvio Berlusconi, with numerous ladies of the night, it brings a whole new meaning to “when in Rome”. Clearly continentals view the actions of their politicians differently to us in Britain. Their private lives are irrelevant...well, unless they are women.

As for our American friends, the most infamous infidelity of recent years is Bill Clinton’s. Even at this distance of time, I am still flabbergasted that a little bit of unwise and improper behaviour became the subject of an impeachment trial. However, the infidelity that I admired, yes, admired, for its sheer brazenness was that of Gary Hart. Remember him, the Colorado Senator better known as “Where’s the Beef?” He allowed himself to be photographed in flagrante with his lady friend on board a yacht whose name was clearly visible: “Monkey Business.” End of political career.

At the risk of being flattened by my wife’s frying pan or by any of the fairer sex when next I walk through the University of Birmingham campus, I regard the sex lives of politicians as private and no business of the voter. Yes, I’m sure it is preferable for a politico to be faithful and a good family man (or woman) but, in terms of conduct, it is not on the Richter Scale compared with MPs treatment of expenses or, heaven forefend, the ability to do the job. Surely it is the latter that is important.

I would have forgiven almost anything done by George W. Bush had he been a good leader. It seems that since he became born-again, Mr Bush has behaved impeccably in his private life; pity the same can’t be said for his stewardship of the States. Warren Harding gave the American voter the worst of both worlds. He got a woman pregnant in a cupboard in the White House whilst he failed the country in the Teapot Dome scandal and most other matters of state. For me, Franklin Roosevelt got it the right way round, unless you were part of his family. What a leader he was, even as he was unfaithful to Eleanor for years.

Maybe I’m too old and jaded, maybe I’ve reached the age of pure cynicism but give me a politician any time who can get the investment banks to behave properly and lawfully, who can reduce loutish behaviour so we can walk city centres at night, who can find ways to reduce teenage pregnancies and who, if an American, can get guns off the streets. Find him or her and he or she can have as many affairs as he or she wants.

The US and Britain: The Attack of the Nanny State?

Two weeks ago, the US Senate approved legislation empowering the federal government with sweeping powers to oversee tobacco products. In essence, Uncle Sam will regulate matters such as the amount of nicotine in a cigarette, not to mention how the cigarette is packaged, signed, and marketed. After 50 years of warnings from the surgeon general, Big Tobacco has finally succumbed to a smoking President. Now, if only the National Rifle Association would fall at the feet of a President with a smoking gun, maybe we would get some sanity over the interpretation of the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms".

I have to declare an interest. Not only am I a reformed smoker – I was a 60-a-day man back in the 1970s, but I am also a trustee of a cancer charity. Therefore, you will not find me defending the rights of the tobacco industry or cigarette smokers. In fact, on a trip to Australia some ten years ago, I welcomed the typical Aussie frankness. The message on a packet of their cigs was to the point: “Smoking Kills”.

However, will Americans be asking a bigger question? Do they want a nanny state, where risk taking is minimized to cover obtuseness, as the government seeks to protect the citizen from everything that they, not the citizen, considers potentially dangerous? Will tobacco regulation be the thin end of the wedge?

In Britain, The Nanny State by Robert Huntington examined the almost obsessive nannying of the Tony Blair and, briefly, Gordon Brown Governments. Huntington writes scathingly about the chief proponents of the movement and argues that bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive, with its army of "five-a-day [fruit and vegetable] coordinators" and "smoking cessation officers", are merely a bunch of conmen who have seized a slice of the Treasury's cash reserves without doing anything productive in return. Huntington argues that nannying is ultimately dangerous, as freedoms are continually eroded while funds and resources are increasingly wasted.

One wonders whether the freedom issue over tobacco legislation might reach the Supreme Court and, if so, if the legislation be rejected towards the end of Obama’s first term. In the economic sphere, I have been astonished at the acceptance by mainstream America of the Federal Government’s takeover of the banking system, a move that is socialist from any viewpoint and attacks the norms of American business freedom and ideology. In the social sphere, will the Obama administration be tempted to make further inroads into American life on the basis of safety?

The proposed healthcare legislation will get a much harder ride in Congress than the new tobacco laws, where I am sure Republican objections to charges of nannying will find support in some Democrat ranks. And, fortunately for the US, separation of powers prevents the executive from ramming through unwelcome legislation. Nevertheless, Congressmen might look at the British experience before they decide to get carried away with petty regulations, passed in the fervour of “we know better than you.”