The Patriot Post® · The Right's Uncomfortable Reckoning With Morality

Democrats have long portrayed themselves as the party of greater compassion, respect for women, and moral integrity, but their political history has never fit neatly into that image.

From John F. Kennedy’s notorious infidelity to Bill Clinton’s scandals in the White House, Democrats have spent decades making excuses for the personal conduct of their candidates, while convincing their supporters that they sit on a higher moral ground.

Republicans, meanwhile, have traditionally built much more of their political identity around family values, personal responsibility, traditional morality, and practicing what they preach. That naturally creates higher expectations for candidates to live by the standards they insist are essential for a strong society. For years, that distinction helped fuel the perception that while neither party was spotless, the Right took character more seriously.

Lately, however, that reputation has taken a beating.

A recent slew of allegations involving Republican candidates and officeholders has created a major distraction for the GOP heading into the elections. While party leaders desperately try to keep voters focused on affordability, they must confront uncomfortable questions about their own standards of conduct — and how to maintain their reputation as the party of family and marriage when some of their own candidates struggle with those values.

The controversies muddy the Republican Party’s message at a particularly bad time, giving Democrats an opening as the elections approach. According to The Hill, “House Republicans are confronting an unwelcome political headache as a string of abuse and harassment allegations involving several GOP lawmakers threatens to complicate the party’s midterm message just months before the November elections.”

Stories of misconduct involve Mark Lamb, Chuck Edwards, Tony Gonzales, and Max Miller, to name a few. The circumstances vary significantly in each case, which matters. But overall, we wonder: What exactly are our standards anymore?

Consider Mark Lamb, the former Pinal County sheriff who recently won the Republican primary for Arizona’s 5th Congressional District. Several women accused Lamb of sending explicit messages and nude photos, participating in unconventional sexual encounters, and using “threats or intimidation” to keep people quiet. Lamb’s congressional campaign has denied the allegations of misconduct, and he has not been convicted of any wrongdoing related to the claims. Voters took that distinction into account, as Lamb won the primary and retained President Trump’s endorsement.

Then there is North Carolina Representative Chuck Edwards. His situation went beyond anonymous accusations circulating online. The bipartisan House Ethics Committee found “substantial reason to believe” Edwards violated House rules by engaging in “persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers.” However, the committee did not conclude that Edwards had sexual relationships with or explicitly propositioned the women, engaged in quid-pro-quo harassment, or violated federal sexual-harassment law. Edwards denied wrongdoing but withdrew from his reelection campaign days after the committee recommended censure.

Former Texas Republican Representative Tony Gonzales acknowledged having an affair with a staffer. He later faced additional accusations of sexual misconduct from another former staffer, including allegations that he pressured her for sex and nude photographs. Gonzales ultimately resigned from Congress while facing a bipartisan effort to expel him.

And now Ohio Republican Representative Max Miller is under enormous pressure over domestic-abuse allegations made by his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, the daughter of Republican Senator Bernie Moreno. She has alleged physical abuse and threatening conduct, including an incident involving a firearm. Miller categorically denies the allegations, filed a defamation lawsuit, and has not been convicted of them. The House Ethics Committee has nevertheless opened an investigation. Moreno, Miller’s former father-in-law and fellow Republican, has publicly stated, “if there are any basic standards of character required to hold elected office, Max Miller fails them.”

The Wall Street Journal recently asked whether political misconduct is “finally having a reckoning,” highlighting Miller and Edwards. However, as scandal after scandal piles up, the stories coming from the Right and the Left are beginning to sound uncomfortably similar — placing both parties under the same tent of impropriety that we should be tearing down, not expanding.

Former Democrat Representative Eric Swalwell resigned from Congress after multiple women accused him of sexual harassment and assault. Swalwell denied the allegations.

Then Maine Democrat Senate candidate Graham Platner saw his once-surging campaign collapse after a former girlfriend accused him of sexual assault. Platner called the accusation “categorically false” and later said that the statements were “coached and coordinated by out-of-state establishment operatives.” He ultimately suspended his campaign while maintaining his innocence.

Up until recently, the latest scandals on the Left would have given Republicans the perfect opportunity to draw a sharp contrast between the two parties. But that time and energy might be better spent getting their own house in order.

If Republicans want to argue that character, family values, and personal responsibility matter, they have to lead by example.

But voters aren’t electing priests and nuns. Politicians are human, and human lives are messy. Marriages fail, and people make terrible personal decisions. Washington would become a ghost town if every politician who ever cheated were disqualified from office.

Obviously, abuse, coercion, exploitation, and predatory behavior are in a different category. At the same time, allegations require evidence and due process. “Accused” cannot become “guilty” simply because we dislike someone’s politics. Neither should political loyalty require us to dismiss every accusation against someone wearing the right jersey.

We should expect the best. Leadership requires judgment, self-control, problem-solving, and respect for the power of public office. Character matters because politicians wield enormous influence over legislation, institutions, and the people who work for them — and power makes it dangerously easy to cross boundaries you once wouldn’t have tolerated.

We don’t need perfect candidates. They don’t exist. But there’s a vast difference between demanding sainthood and tolerating virtually anything.

It shouldn’t be too much to ask for the best — or at the very least, people whose behavior we have to explain away. We should hold our politicians to the same standards as teachers, neighbors, CEOs, and police officers. Those seeking office should expect nothing less.

In the end, standards and values only mean something when we practice what we preach.

And as Samuel Adams once said, “The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.”