Over time, voters may react negatively to image of a man pursuing the presidency as his wife struggles with an incurable disease. But whether or not that is the image they see is another question, and that creation of that image largely depends on how we in the media frame the Edwards' decision. Specifically, such an image will emerge if we depict that choice as Jay did: as a man -- John Edwards -- torn between "his duties as husband and father to three children, including a 6 and 8 year old" and "his duty to his country and the cause of winning the White House."Having some experience with traumatic events, I can safely say that how one deals with trauma, or loss, or death, or any other deeply serious issue has a tremendous amount to do with how one personally chooses to, or just instinctively does, react. In the aftermath of the Simon's Rock shooting, I was cracking jokes in the hospital starting from the time I was on the operating table (true story). It helped me rationalize things. Sure, there were times in the following months and years when I mourned, and times to have long philosophical conversations about it, and times to act a bit defiantly to prove I was alive...and all of those were appropriate at the time. For those who have trouble imagining me angry, they should have seen the fire I was spitting when an unnamed family member who does not read this blog, as far as I know, challenged me on my ways of dealing with my memories, thinking that he knew better than I (this may be something of a giveaway as to whom I am referring).
First of all, this framework presents what might be -- in the eyes of both John and Elizabeth -- a false choice. From all they've told us, the Edwards family sees those duties (as husband, as father, as candidate), as overlapping. Surely, one reason John Edwards is running for president because he wants to be a part of creating a better world for his family. Which brings us to the second problem: The decision to keep the campaign going was not John Edwards' alone to make. (And I find the presumption that it could be startlingly archaic.) John may find himself pulled to simply concentrate on his family, but I think Elizabeth would push back. I think she already has.
Does it seem selfish that he continues to run? Think about it this way: Your doctor gives you a year to live. Of course you decide to pursue the things in life you either put off or gave up on. You follow your dreams, as they say. You sail around the world. You read the Bible in Aramaic. You reconcile with a family member. For Elizabeth Edwards, the answer to the "what would you do if you only had a year to live" question is simple: Get my husband elected President.
Is that decision selfish, given that the couple has two small children? I can't say -- and I'm not sure if anyone who doesn't know the family can -- but I don't think it's a question with a standard answer.
When my aunt developed breast cancer, and especially toward the end where the news got progressively worse, she tried to pack as much life out of her remaining time as possible. I'm sure she also spent time mourning, as did any number of family members before and after. If the Edwards choose to take the fighting path, more power to them (if they had chosen to drop out of the campaign, more power to them in that, too). Family is important, but let's try to remember that he is campaigning for the presidency of the United States.
Simply put, John Edwards has a legitimate shot to become the most powerful and influential person in the entire world, able to set an agenda that could conceivably help out millions of people (i think so, and I certainly think that he thinks so). If he and his wife agree that this is the higher goal, and that they are both capable of it, how in the name of anything good and holy can you try to argue he should drop out. This isn't just a job, or some kind of passing fad, it is the presidency of the United States, and that title used to mean something before the current administration decided to crap all over it. I can't say I envy the Edwards' the pain and grief they will likely have to face in the much too quickly approaching future, but they are entirely justified in their priorities. There is a legacy at stake here, for the candidate with the strongest social vision of any of the current candidates (Obama has him on general tone and eloquence, but Edwards wins on pure vision of how to make us a better country). They, as a couple, are in a position shared by only a handful of people the world round, and seem well aware of that potential. If they choose to prioritize the greater good with the time they have, and people want to complain about that, forgive me if I have to think it speaks vastly more poorly about the latter's morals than the former's.
5 comments:
I agree. It is their decision, and especially her decision. The fact is that Edwards feels he can do good for this country. It doesn't matter if you agree with his vision of america. But it is his right.
In many ways many of the decisions and problems that most families go through in these kind of situations are taken care of. Edwards is well off. Their children won't be left without support. They can afford the best proactive care, full time nurses, and all that. Anyone who says that kind of thing isn't important is completely fooling themselves. It is important.
Not to be harsh, but finances are one of the most important things. Elizabeth Edwards has the chance to support her husband in his dreams because of that freedom. That is a wonderful gift. It should be honored as such.
As far as people go. Especially in how they react to extreme circumstances. Well...everyone reacts completely differently. My sister, who does not read this blog, honestly reacted so strongly to our father's death, due to cancer, that I still can barely believe it. It was honestly the most self-centered and malicious I've ever seen a person act. In some it brings out the best, the most noble and caring aspects of the human condition. In others. Well....
Anyone who attempts to criticize Edwards for his campaign that focuses on his wife will be slammed. Period.
I expect the entire subject will be taboo during any and all discussions or debates.
I hate when people dig into a person's personal life, whether they are running for public office or not. It's none of Joe Q Public's damn business what decisions they make about how they run their private lives.
Beautifully put. As someone who was alongside you, it brought back a flood of emotion. I never knew dontil you tugged each and every one. ctors had such yankable chains uAnd your aunt must have learned at your feet. As she put it, when the doctors gave her six months to live right after the initial diagnosis she gave them the finger. As to that other person, it's just his way of coping and mourning (though occasionally spitting fire in that direction is clearly warranted). John Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards are living fully. Can the rest of us say that.
I'll note for the record that while that certain relation can rile me more than just about anyone else I know, I never actually spit fire at him, rather that I held my tongue and then let loose with a rant to my wife, who gave me one of those semi-sympathetic, semi-patronizing looks that wives do so well and then remarked, "It's because he's taller than you, I know". That put it into perspective, I suppose.
It's strange how publicly unpopular it is to make the argument that country can legitimately be placed before family, even though that is what we demand out of the million or two enlistees in the military without a second thought...and the Edwards' are hardly asking that of themselves. Their kids went with them last campaign, and will almost certainly travel widely with them during this one...so it's not even really an issue. Still, under the logic of the journamalists, especially those on the right who will criticize him, most of our military should have never signed up...do they really want to draw that conclusion?
umm... I hate to tell you this ..... but a lot of people are taller than you....
Post a Comment