It comes down to two alternative words: redemption or chutzpah.
Former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey resigned from his position in 2004 after announcing to the world that he had been living a lie and was gay, as his crushed wife stood loyally by his side. (She then divorced him as soon as she could.) He’s been wandering in the wilderness ever since, but yesterday he formally reentered politics by announcing his intention to become mayor of the state’s second largest city, Jersey City, last week.
A lawyer with the Georgetown Law Center degree and a Masters from Harvard, he was considered a rising Democratic Party star with a picture-perfect family and obvious ability. But a man he had appointed to a position in his administration under odd circumstances threatened to sue McGreevey for sexual harassment, and shortly thereafter, the governor was making a sensational statement at a press conference in which he revealed that he was a “gay American” and that he had engaged in an adulterous affair with a man. He then announced that he would resign, which McGreevey did, though he delayed long enough to avoid a special election.
And now…he’s baaaaack!
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
Is it ethical to give McGreevey another chance at elected office?
I had decided to post this story as a quiz before I did some background research on what I had written about McGreevey on the old Ethics Scoreboard when the scandal first broke. I found this, in my nominations for 2004 Unethical Politician of the Year: “New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, who used his closet homosexuality to explain his sudden exit as governor, just as a welter of other scandals were about to bring him down anyway.”
Funny, none of the news reports last week mentioned any other scandals. Oh! Right! He’s a Democrat, so the media’s theme is redemption, not “corrupt politician comes crawling back for another attempt to con the public.” In addition to hiring his apparent male lover to a position in his administration at a salary of over $100,000 a year, McGreevey was implicated in a plot to extort $40,000 in contributions to McGreevey’s reelection campaign from a wealthy farmer. In the 47-page indictment of McGreevey’s head fundraiser, there were references to the involvement of “State Official 1”—McGreevey, who gave a coded promise that the farmer’s $40,000 campaign contribution would get him preferential treatment in a dispute over his land.
It is not as if the former governor’s post-political career has been squeaky clean either. He tried to become a priest in the Episcopal church but was rejected. In 2013, McGreevey was appointed executive director of Jersey City’s Employment & Training Program (JCETP), but fired four years later after a forensic audit suggested that funds had been inappropriately re-directed to another program.
Never mind. Those black marks are icing on the untrustworthy cake: in my view, McGreevey’s fake persona that advanced his political career until he was dragged out of the closet, plus his betrayal of his wife and children, is more than sufficient to disqualify him for a position of trust, elected or otherwise.
“This election is not about yesterday, it’s about our tomorrows,” the disgraced governor said in announcing his return to politics. I think it’s about today: a dispiriting time when two discredited figures are likely to be our options for President, a woman who accepts pay to urinate online narrowly loses a race to be a Virginia delegate, members of Congress openly make excuses for terrorists, deliberately commit felonies to disrupt votes, get elected based on a completely false set of credentials, or marry their bother. McGreevey’s campaign slogan should be Rationalization #22: “There are worse things.“
Ethics Alarms 
He was an embarrassment as governor, and the fact that he delayed his resignation long enough to specifically avoid a special election while the state was left to struggle under a discredited governor should tell you all you need to know. Frankly, none of the last few Democratic governors of New Jersey have been all that impressive, although James Florio, may he rest in peace, was probably the most hated. Jon Corzine was probably the slimiest, and was justifiably thrown out after one term by loudmouth Chris Christie. He was supposed to be this financial wizard who would come into New Jersey and fix all of the financial woes, but all he did was tell everyone that they would have to pony up more of their paycheck to get the same services. McGreevey was only elected because in the wake of Christy Whitman’s two terms (before she left to become administrator of the EPA) Acting Governor Don DiFrancesco had no interest in running for a full-term and was eager to get back to his lucrative private law practice, leaving no recognizable heir apparent.
If it’s ethical to see either Trump or Biden on a ballot in ’24, then “giving McGreevey another chance” seems imperative.
Voting for him is another matter.
I would agree. Even in 2004, being gay should not have been a disqualifier – Harvey Milk was open about his sexuality long before that. Unfortunately many people lived lies and pretended to be straight in order to not having to fight those who might find his sexuality objectionable. Such behavior is not any more untrustworthy than someone hiding their political beliefs to avoid occupational persecution.
The other elements identified that suggest lack of integrity or honesty need to be evaluated by voters if the state is not going forward to prove the facts of the allegations. We have to assume that he is innocent of those allegations until proven guilty. To assume otherwise is unethical.
Whoa! This isn’t a criminal case, and voting doesn’t require belief that a candidate is untrustworthy beyond a reasonable doubt. Before his burglary conviction, would you have voted for OJ? McGreevey has been involved in multiple scandals, though his exact complicity never got him indicted. The fact that had taxpayers support a guy he picked up on a trip is per se wrongful, and a matter of record. But never mind any of that: he can be excused for hiding his sexuality at a time when it was a matter of widespread bias. Deceiving his wife about it, and cheating on her, while governor, is sufficient evidence of bad character and untrustworthiness for me.
Straw man. It isn’t ethical to see either on a ballot. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Traditionally, someone besieged with scandal, who also betrayed his wife and children, would be considered unfit for public office, but…
…that was before the new non-patriarchical-white-supremacist math, so let’s see…
white + scandalous + adulterous is still bad. But the new intersectional modifier of “gay” serves to reduce scandalous and adulterous to non-existent, leaving just white + gay. There are two bonuses as well. First, there is “was straight, but switched later in life” bonus, and the second “yeah, he committed adultery, but it was gay adultery” bonus. So, and we are left with white + gay + (was straight, but switched later in life) + (yeah, he committed adultery, but it was gay adultery).
This equation is a sure winner.
Therefore, Jim McGreevey is not only a viable candidate, but he should only be bested by someone who is either “of-color” or “trans” (which rate more highly). In addition, his ex-wife (who is white, not trans, and probably heterosexual) could only be a negative in the math. She can be classed as albatross on his career and he was right to leave her, especially for a man.
I’m not saying your analysis is wrong, I am just saying that the Episcopal Church thing is odd. I mean, what would a gay Democrat have to do to be rejected as an Episcopal priest?
In this case I think the lying led the bishops to decide he needed further “discernment.”
JM – in the new math, I think you need a summation of all i = 1 to N scandals S_sub_i, where each S_sub_i s a combination of a scandal severity factor and a scandal survival factor to obtain a scandal score. An advanced function might decay for time.
In the past, this summation would be subtracted in your equation. In the now, it is added. Avoiding scandals is so passé. There is no such thing is bad publicity, only no publicity. Scandal sells, baby.
Whoa! Yeah, and survivability might be heavily weighted with regard to ideology, where conservatives have a MUCH lower survival factor than non-conservatives. I like where you’re going with this. Marc Anthony can say what he wants, but I say you’re way more than a pretty face and a good voice!!
McGreevey may have decided that gay is the new black (as in fashion), and not merely a mitigating factor, but a positive. Witness those gushing over Pete Buttigieg, in spite of little evidence of competence or accomplishment outside of being “cute gay guy”.
I cling to a naive longing for the days of yore when community leaders were people of good character with positive ethical behavior, and had an integral life where their words and actions were congruent.
But, alas, that may have always been a fantasy that existed only in my dreams.