Sadly, it appears the NYT did not wish to accept my letter in response to Frank Bruni’s column last Sunday, Jan 19, so I’ll share my two cents here:
To the editor:
I have mixed feelings responding to Frank Bruni’s column, “Love, Marriage, and Voters,” for I cannot imagine that Colorado governor Hickenlooper’s ex-wife, Helen Thorpe, intended for the private details of their marriage’s end to be made public by her ex-husband and celebrated by Frank Bruni.
That said, I want to caution any couple considering divorce that Hickenlooper and Thorpe’s vision of a “good” divorce—in which they plan to spend holidays and vacations together for the benefit of their son—is unlikely to survive longer than it takes one of them to find a new partner, who undoubtedly will not wish to spend much free time with a lover’s ex. In the end, a wife who could consider staying married for the sake of a presidential run might also be counseled to consider staying married so that their son could grow up in one family.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Marquardt
Categories: Children of Divorce, Marriage
Thanks for this Post, Elizabeth.
Several observations, if I may. It’s unfair I think to speculate to deeply on the Hickenlooper/Thorpe relationship. But, the following makes me wonder about Helen Thorpe, and her ideals:
I can’t begin to imagine what being a wife to an important political figure would be like … but, after all, what do wedding vows mean. I sense this was a very difficult hurdle for her, but doesn’t love require sacrifice, at some point. Where, at some point, it’s not all about us.
Elizabeth:
“In the end, a wife who could consider staying married for the sake of a presidential run might also be counseled to consider staying married so that their son could grow up in one family.”
Elizabeth, good point. But, why shouldn’t a wife be counseled to stay together, if at all possible. Yes, staying together until their son is grown, is a good. Staying together, through thick and thin, ’til death do them part … seems way better.
I’m with you, Elizabeth Marquardt. I think it is a terribly sad commentary on our society that someone would consider staying married for the sake of her husband’s political ambitions but not for the sake of a child. How is that seen as okay?
I would add, though, that I think the husband is the real problem here. He wanted his political career more than his marriage. She was crazily ready to stay with him so he could have what he wanted, but he wasn’t willing to give it up for her.
I think he should have – for her and for their kid.
I was also sorry to see Bruni describing it as conventional and naive to care about marriage or even infidelity.
Interesting point Diane.
Elizabeth’s letter implicitly criticizes the wife for apparently valuing her husband’s political career more than raising their son together, but we ourselves do the exact same thing by not suggesting that the husband abandon his political ambitions for the same reason.
Double standard anyone?
No kidding. FWIW, the husband of a friend of mine ran for congress back in the early 90s (the party pretty much figured they were going to lose, but didn’t want to leave the race unopposed—he was a young, fresh face, military vet, married, Ken-doll looks, so…..he was tapped). She told him in no uncertain terms that if he ever did that again, they were getting a divorce. It was really grueling and intrusive; she was in the middle of getting an education, they were broke and suddenly rubbing elbows with the rich and powerful party operatives and being intensely styled for the cameras, told what to say and how to say it…..yeesh. They hadn’t been married very long, and she was already dealing with the culture-shock of marrying a guy from a locally-prominent family and the disconnect of changing social class (she was the daughter of a single-mom who was the breadwinner for not just her two daughters, but her own parents as well). She described it to me (this being the era before reality television took off) as having a film shot on-location, in your home and everywhere else you went, 24/7 (she was a professional actor/dancer before getting married and going to school, so she was familiar with long rehearsals with demanding directors, and said that was nothing compared to politics).
What I found most intriguing about the article was the mention of how marriage may someday no longer be necessary for those seeking larger public offices—and I think that would be a great thing. Political flyers that use candidates’ families as “props” or for the political equivalent of street cred always offend me; it’s as if the family is just another consumer product placed for styling. I’m not voting for a candidate’s family; I’m voting for the candidate. That someone is married and/or has children says nothing about his or her ability to perform in office.
but doesn’t love require sacrifice, at some point
Funny how we always expect that sacrifice to be made by the wife.