John F. Kennedy's affair with Marilyn Monroe will go down in history as one of the biggest stories of the 1960s. To this day, there is debate as to whether the two actually had a relationship. Six decades later, most people agree that the two did in fact meet without Jackie Kennedy's knowledge, but the reputation of being a cheater doesn't seem to have tainted JFK's all-too-brief political career. And even if the affair hadn't been true, the allegations alone would not have tarnished JFK's stellar Catholic reputation.
As elected officials, we expect our representatives to be their most honest, most loyal selves; to faithfully represent us and our aspirations; to be good citizens; to create an image of the United States as a strong, united nation, when in reality it is not. And while our representatives, elected officials, and bureaucrats are human like us, and prone to mistakes like us, at what point do we peel back the veil of patriotism and punish our representatives for their moral lapses? At what point do their mistakes become too critical and fatal to a successful political campaign? Do we really want to give morally incompetent people the face and identity to lead this country, and henceforth tarnish it with their abhorrent actions?
Former President Donald Trump was convicted on May 30 of 34 counts of fraud, including 11 counts of false invoices for legal services, 11 counts of fraudulent checks paid for legal services, and 12 counts of false bookkeeping entries for legal expenses. All 12 jurors unanimously found that Trump falsified business records to hide hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Looking beyond his politics and policy leanings, do we, the American people, really want to elect a man who has now been convicted and be led by him? His crimes were not misdemeanor possession charges or a matter of self-defense. This man knew he was cheating but did so to gain power from the highest office in the country. Not only that, Trump was said to have bragged about meeting Daniels in 2006 after he married his third and current wife, former First Lady of the United States, Melania Trump. On the golf course, a friend of his said, he specifically said, “My driver shot went 20 yards today.” This suggests that the encounter was recent and therefore after he and Melania were married and around the time their youngest son was born.
While we can all recognize that humans are fallible, Trump has made a significant number of egregious mistakes, many of which are awaiting trial, and other accusations have been found to be true over the years: Not only has Trump loudly bragged about assaulting women and “grabbing them by the genitals,” but a jury unanimously found him to have sexually assaulted columnist Jean Carroll in 1996.
Polls show that approval of Trump's campaign is declining ahead of the November election, as are the numbers voting for him. Majorities of moderates and independents appear to hold Trump to a higher moral standard. And more than half of voters believe a conviction would be fair, despite the opposition of many Republicans, including Trump himself.
The other option doesn’t fare much better either. President Biden’s already flawed and criticized administration is tainted by its involvement with Israel, which is currently committing atrocities against the Palestinian people. We can sit back and watch as the Biden administration and staff fight for our reproductive rights, the right of all to legally marry, and work to reduce the impact of student loan burdens on our people, but how can we be satisfied with his policies and actions when he is complicit in genocide? By voting for Biden, we are being asked to keep the government out of our wombs, marginally improve the situation for people of color, and stop the United States from committing acts of environmental vandalism, but in so doing, we are choosing a candidate who has repeatedly strengthened Israeli militias and therefore engaged in the genocide of Palestinians.
Policy matters, and it is important that we vote how we think best. In a two-party system, it is nearly impossible to find representatives you agree with 100% or that you can blindly trust. But we must ask ourselves how important policy is when the person we are voting for is morally abhorrent. When it comes to politics and voting, there are many concessions to be made. Most of us have to set aside some of our beliefs in order for more important beliefs to be heard. And at times like these, many of us have to set aside our morality in order to ensure that other rights and freedoms are not taken away. But when is the line drawn where such moral failings are so egregious that we decide we are not willing to vote for them?
Perhaps we were unable to pick a morally clean candidate this presidential election, but we need to weigh morality in who we elect going forward. We must hold our elected officials to high moral standards. Otherwise, we will always be in the position of voting with our conscience or voting against our conscience.
Livia LaMarca is an assistant editor on the Opinion Desk who is nostalgic for the Oxford comma. She writes primarily about American political discourse, American pop culture, and social movements. To share your own opinion, email lll60@pitt.edu.
