Last night, Harry B sent me a link to a rather amazing speech by the first minister of Northern Ireland, Peter Robinson. He knows that I have a weakness for writing about politician's peccadilloes and all things salacious.
In the speech, Robinson explains that his wife of 40 years had an affair and attempted to commit suicide when the affair became known. He describes his first reaction, which was to walk away from the marriage, but that after reflection of the entire history of their marriage, he decided to remain married. He insists that although his personal life was in turmoil, he was still able to perform his public duties.
The speech is extraordinary for many reasons. It is heartbreaking in its honesty. The minister is completely devastated by his wife's actions.
It is also extraordinary, because the minister felt the need to make a public statement about her
affair. He didn't run off to Argentina or buy a high priced call girl.
It was his wife who made the error, and her error was a very
commonplace, boring sort of affair. No laws were broken. No illegitimate love children.
No hypocrisy. But with the 24 hour media and the Internet, the lives of
public officials are open to all of us and required him to make a
statement. We are living in strange times indeed.
He does seem to be a strong person with incredible powers
of forgiveness. This is certainly an example not of a politician's
peccadilloes, but of a politician's character. A rare thing.
It also made me wonder if I had be too judgmental about political wives who remained married to their husbands, even after very public and horrific betrayals of trust.
Apt. 11d 
Right now there is probably somebody’s consultant wathcing this and wondering if he could tell his adulterous candidate to fake a suicide attempt or if fears of having a guy with mental illness in office would outweight any sympathy boost.
LikeLike
It also made me wonder if I had be too judgmental about political wives who remained married to their husbands, even after very public and horrific betrayals of trust.
No, the difference here is not that it was the wife who had the affair rather than the husband — it’s that the spouse without the power had the affair rather than the spouse in the powerful office. This isn’t Margaret Thatcher who was publicly revealed to have had an affair, so the affair was not also an abuse of power. I think it’s an important difference.
LikeLike
so the affair was not also an abuse of power. I think it’s an important difference.
But the power you’re highlighting isn’t within the marriage–within the marriage each partner had equal power to betray the other. Are you suggesting that the non-powerful partner owes a duty to the public to make part of their decision about whether to stay in the marriage an evaluation of how the cheating partner abused the power of his or her office?
LikeLike
Wow. What a statement. Brave, loving, tragic, noble, and wise. So rarely to we see people who have clambered up into positions of power exhibit such traits. Blessings on him and his family.
LikeLike
Blessings on him and his family.
I know things have improved, but wouldn’t getting fired from being minister of Northern Ireland count as a blessing for most people.
LikeLike
On the other hand, unlike Govs. Sanford, McGreevey, Spitzer, etc., this may have been a good occasion for the wife to be standing stoically at his side.
LikeLike
I agree with the sentiment that Russell attempts to convey. What’s unique about this clip is the depth of personal emotion, which is displayed. While Ragtime notes the other indiscretions, none of the partners tried to commit suicide. The level of remorse and embarrassment from both sides is profound. Wile the wife of Governor Sanford was interviewed by Barbara Walters, it did not carry with it the gravity or depth of emotion. The first minister also notes that he has been attentive in fulfilling his duties, which is remarkable different than confessions we have seen to date in the US.
LikeLike
To add something — while toward the end he says he has done nothing wrong (meaning nothing to wrong to the public) during the statement he takes part of the responsibility, apparently appropriately, apparently sincerely, and obviously completely unnecessarily from a public relations point of view, for the problems in his marriage.
I’ve not had any particular reason to admire him, and in fact he was long regarded as something of a loyalist fanatic, and his wife has made some awful homophobic statements. But I was deeply moved by seeing him talk, and also charmed by his Sinn Fein deputy first minister Martin McGuinness’s comments, and thought Laura would be touched by the contrast with some of the behaviours she’s talked about in the past.
LikeLike
Around 2:20 he starts talking about the harsh reality his wife has had to confront over the years, as he, as he put it, pursued his “beliefs”–raising the children mostly alone, dealing with threats of violence and the burdens of security, etc. He confronted the pain which his chosen path has involved–however rewarding it may have been to him personally and whatever good some may attribute to his career in politics–with great honesty, I thought. Definitely one of the more humble speeches I have ever heard a politician give.
LikeLike
I was very touched and impressed by this guy. Thanks so much for sharing it with me, harry. In a world full of creeps, it’s really good to see an example of a person with character.
LikeLike
This thing appears to be more complicated than noted above as the wife was an MP herself and there was a ‘loan’ to the very young guy. See here.
LikeLike
Yeah, it looks like her “improprieties” (possibly caused by some mental illness, possibly not) involved money as well as sex, and there may be (in fact, probably will be) some legal consequences to that. Doesn’t change to profound decency of Robinson’s statement, though.
LikeLike
No, but it makes it closer to the gender-flipped version of the typical political adultery thing.
LikeLike
It seems that she is mentally ill and has been for some time, which just increases my symmpathy for him. The improprieties of which HE is accused seem like they’ll stick, but for him it is a matter of not having reported (as he should have) things that he was aware she had done. The money involved seems very small (in America the kinds of things that British politicians lose their careers for are simply expected behaviour). My guess is that he’s going to lose his job, and quite possibly his marriage, over this. None of it changes my initial assessment (we really do think alike about things, often, Russell!)
LikeLike
A further note — the reason that I think he is likely to lose his job is that the Ulster Unioinsts, which are the more moderate unionist party (though I’m not sure how important these distinctions are now, in a world in which Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness can share power and smile together) are out for his blood, and will do whatever they can to do him in. At a certain point his own party (the DUP) will have a very powerful incentive to stab him in the back.
LikeLike
Kind of an aside: do we believe from 50-75% of men cheat on occasion, and 30-60% of women have cheated (estimates I’ve seen vary widely)? I’d guess the majority of such liaisons do *not* result in the dissolution of the married couple. So lots of wronged spouses are sucking it up and sticking around. Forgiving, whatever you wanna call it.
I understand everyone is saying the speech was noteworthy because of its honesty and emotional candor, flipping the normal gender pattern, etc. Just wanted to say that the “forgiveness” aspect must be quite common – I’d guess about half of all Americans have done it.
LikeLike
So lots of wronged spouses are sucking it up and sticking around. Forgiving, whatever you wanna call it.
I’ve seen numbers somewhat like that above (though I can’t say I recall for sure what they were), but do these numbers not include people whose spouses never learn of the infidelity? I’d always assumed so. I have to say that I quite strongly believe that “confessing” one’s infidelity to one’s spouse if you don’t need to (he or she will never know, say) is often one of the most selfish things one can do. Better to just keep quite and live with whatever guilt one has.
LikeLike
You should probably see if Peter Singer or somebody doesn’t have a guideline on how much blackmail you should pay before you need to come clean.
LikeLike
For those who more about this lovely couple, the title of Laura’s post is ironic indeed. Can I point out that these two are infamous for their rightwing bigotry and homophobia? A year or so ago, the wife – while an MP – was quoted as saying something to the effect that homosexuality is worse than the sexual abuse of children. I’m pretty sure this wonderful husband of hers didn’t publicly disagree. In fact, he said: “It wasn’t Iris Robinson who determined that homosexuality was an abomination, it was The Almighty.”
What a humble and touching man.
link to quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Robinson
LikeLike
Thanks for filling me in on this guy’s political background, Reuben. I haven’t closely followed Northern Ireland politics in years, though it used to be a big interest of mine.
But doesn’t this guy’s bigotry and political errors make this story even more fascinating. If he had been a political saint, his personal story wouldn’t have as interesting. We would expect a political saint to be a saint in his personal life as well. The political devil who makes good on a personal level is much more surprising. It’s like a good novel.
LikeLike
Hmm. How much of this is ‘making good on a personal level’ and how much of this is fighting for one’s political life after knowingly and wilfully concealing clear evidence of fraud and bribery? There’s a lot of politics going on here, I suspect, and he knows that he needs the public on his side if he is to survive, particularly since he lied to key members of his own political party about the important details of this issue. This means that they came out in his favour, and now regret doing so, and are turning on him.
It always strikes me as rather suspicious when someone’s good side only comes out when it’s his neck on the line. Think of this as a natural experiment: when given the chance to show great character about issues that affect gays and others he considers unacceptable, he has repeatedly failed to do so. But when given the chance to show great character on issues directly affecting his political survival, he suddenly musters the moral courage.
That’s not my definition of character. Charisma maybe, self-interest definitely.
LikeLike
Well, I did know that about them, having remembered her comment from when it was made, in a particularly incendiary moment (you omit that it was made in the aftermath of a vicious physical attack on a gay man) and it made me think hard about the incident. It’s true that they both have repulsive views about homosexuality, and of course, its also worth noting that they are members of the DUP for goodness sake. But Iris Robinson is clearly seriously mentally ill and has been for some time. Whether or not this is in anyway associated with her notorious homophobia, I leave others to decide. Personally, I don’t think their views about homosexuality disqualifies them from our sympathy or, in Peter Robinson’s case, from our admiration with respect to how he has handled this particular situation. (It is worth noting that his views about homosexuality seem to have had no impact on his behaviour as First Minister, according to a BBC report that I ca’t, right now, link to). I don’t know about you, but I know plenty of people who have views that I (rightly!) consider entirely wrong about homosexuality, poverty, even war, but whom I like and would extend sympathy and help to if they were in a similar situation to this. There’s really a lot in the injunction to “hate the sin, but not the sinner”, and though it is sometimes also right to hate the sinner, it is not always.
I would hope, certainly, that an experience like this would teach them some humility, and, in time, cause them to reflect on their views about homosexuality (committing adultery, or divorcing, deprive one entirely of the ability to oppose same-sex marriage in good faith, for sure, and I am not above pointing this outto friends who oppose same-sex marriage having, themselves, contributed to the undermining of marriage that they, wrongly, think that same-sex marriage would contribute to).
Finally, though, its a bit unrealistic to expect her to renounce her views about homosexuality publicly at a time like this (as Peter Tatchell’s comments suggest she should). (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8446229.stm). If the point is to use this as a “teachable moment” for her and those who have admired and think like her, an approach expressing great sympathy and the expectation that it will lead to humility and revision of her attitudes might be a bit more promising (I know that attack is Tatchell’s style, and, don’t get me wrong, on balance I want him to carry on being the way he is: overall more a force for good in this world than the vast majority of us and all of his detractors).
LikeLike
I think accusations of hypocrisy are overused at the best of times, but I think they’re completely out of place when dealing with a mentally ill person, since mental problems can cause very uncharacteristic behavior. I can think of several examples. A now deceased male relative was a notorious tightwad in his prime, but as dementia closed in, he became a mark for seemingly every scammer on the planet and his home filled up with reconditioned electronics that he had “won” through sweepstakes. He was going to take everybody to Hawaii when he won the big prize! Similarly, another elderly male relative started flirting obnoxiously with waitresses in front of his wife a few years before it became clear that he had Alzheimer’s. Lastly, a male friend who is an opera and ballet enthusiast has been losing the struggle with bipolar disorder over the past several years. It’s hard to keep up with him, but he was recently homeless, and he’s been getting into bar fights.
LikeLike
I think the sincerity (and the mental illness) would all be more respect-worthy if he were to resign from political office. As it is, it’s kind of difficult to see the words as being something substantially different from saving his career, income, and prestige.
And, the release of this statement without the other malfeasance (Laura referred to it saying, no laws were broken, . . .) when in fact the underlying infidelity is indeed quite publicly complicated is troublesome, to me, too.
I respect his standing by his wife, but that has nothing to do with his political career.
LikeLike
Except what did he do wrong beyond not turning over his wife to the prosecutor? I don’t know about the U.K., but you can’t be compelled to testify against your spouse in most U.S. jurisdictions. I think there are sound reasons for having that as a right.
Publicly asserting homosexuality is wrong isn’t a crime, just something the voters can use as a reason for voting for or against a particular candidate.
LikeLike
Oh, I didn’t say he had to resign from office, only that I suspect the sincerity of the statement, if it appears to serve the purpose of bolstering his career. But, saying that “*I” have nothing wrong” sounds pretty much like parsing the law to me.
I also believe that sincere care of a mentally ill wife, whose illness has impinged on the public welfare (the loans, and serving on the board that awarded grants to her lover are the problems) might require a greater time and commitment than is compatible with being first minister.
I also find the released remarks about Robinson’s illness to be self-serving: “”Everyone is paying a heavy price for my actions. Psychiatrists may suggest that my mental illness was a significant factor explaining my irrational behavior. I do not, in any way, question or doubt their judgement, but in order to master my life, I do not want to dilute the blame or resist taking full responsibility for my actions. I am completely ashamed and deeply embarrassed.”
(Ugh, talk about saying, “if I was wrong, than I’m sorry”)
LikeLike
I also find the released remarks about Robinson’s illness to be self-serving:
But the Robinson with the illness did resign. Anyway, that’s about as much time as I’m going to spend defending the Orange.
LikeLike
That’s interesting bj. I read those same words as an attempt to take responsibility for what she did despite the fact that experts say she is mentally ill (which she acknowledges that she is). I don’t know how they will be read in the poltical/religious culture she’s in, but I’ve spoken to a couple of leftish unioinists who read it that way.
Robinson has ordered a swift inquiry into his own actions, and made it clear that if the inquiry finds against him he will resign.
Like MH, I’m uneasy spending too much time defending extreme loyalist homophobes.
LikeLike
Except what did he do wrong beyond not turning over his wife to the prosecutor?
He’s NI’s First Minister, not just some bloke down the pub. And his wife is an MP. He knew she had committed fraud, and didn’t report it. Would I report my wife in his situation? Almost surely not. But would I report someone from an opposing party who did exactly what she did? Yes. And that is expedient, selfish, and politically and personally motivated. And politicians, no matter what side they are on, deserve to do down for that.
Let’s translate the behaviour to another context: if your boss’s wife, who also had a very senior position at the company, was committing fraud using ocmpnay money, and he knew about it but tried to hush it up, would you think it was fine?
LikeLike
What I would expect is that a man whose wife cheated on him would smack back by the easiest way possible, such as reporting her for illegal use of funds.
LikeLike
“That’s interesting bj. I read those same words as an attempt to take responsibility for what she did despite the fact that experts say she is mentally ill (which she acknowledges that she is). ”
I read it as an attempt to get “credit” for both being mentally ill (How nice of her not to doubt the psychiatrists judgment. Is she willing to give them the same respect when they testify about diminished responsibility in someone else’s case?) and being responsible (but without actually suffering any consequences).
LikeLike
PS: I also have to say that I don’t know why I’m participating in this conversation, since I’d heard about none of the players before reading Laura’s post and don’t, generally, follow the politics of Northern Ireland at all. I’ve got to stop 🙂
LikeLike
I also have to say that I don’t know why I’m participating in this conversation…
You could take the details, switch the setting to somewhere in the U.S., add a half-dozen other affairs, make everybody a bit more physically attractive, and turn the female MP into a vampire. Instant best seller.
LikeLike
Hey, am I the one getting advice on writing bad literature? I could do it, too. I think all the folks are pretty physically attractive, though. Can Meryl Streep play the female MP/vampire in the movie?
LikeLike
Speaking of literature, people named Mrs. Robinson, and adulterous wives involved with very young men, I can’t believe that I didn’t make a “Here’s to you Mrs. Robinson” joke last week. I blame society.
LikeLike