When I was abroad, one of my French professors was adamant about understanding the American fascination with politicians’ personal lives. He couldn’t seem to grasp how we as people could be so offended by Bill Clinton and his Monica Lewinsky stage.

As a very young and impressionable child during the Clinton era, I remember understanding that what had happened was indeed a very big deal. I still cringe thinking about the infamous speech: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman ….”

I remember the news stations playing the same clip over and over again, and though I didn’t want him to get impeached (whatever I thought that meant), I “understood” that what he had done was wrong and that there was no place in the White House for someone who did something so morally irresponsible.

I suppose since then I’ve always believed that politicians should stand on a higher moral ground than the rest of us. The truth, though, is that public officials are people, too; being politicians doesn’t make them any less vulnerable to engaging in morally compromising behavior.

My professor argued that we should be less vested in our politicians’ personal lives because, in most cases, it shouldn’t have any bearing on their responsibility as a public official.

In light of recent allegations that Herman Cain had a 13-year affair with Ginger White (on top of other sexual harassment cases brought forward by other women), I have to wonder why these particular issues have to be at the forefront of his campaign.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m definitely not condoning his behavior or suggesting that it shouldn’t play a role in deciding whether he’s the right man for the job.

What I am saying is that as a candidate for the president of the United States, what matters the most are Cain’s political views, goals and ambitions.

Having an extended affair and covering up sexual assault cases do not speak volumes about Cain’s character, but that’s not primarily why we shouldn’t elect him.

His lack of knowledge about Libya, his reduction of the tax system to a flat 9-9-9 plan, his questioning the existence of the Palestinian people — these are things that should be more relevant in our choice to elect or not elect him.

As citizens, we feel our public officials have a duty to uphold a moral responsibility, perhaps one more strict than our own. It’s hard for us to justify questionable behavior on the part of someone we’ve put so much faith and trust in.

Cain’s candidacy perhaps makes his a unique situation because he’s vying for the vote of the American people. His nonchalant and somewhat humorous attitude toward his improprieties might make us feel like he’s not taking his responsibility as a candidate seriously enough, and that’s offensive.

That being said, politicians are not auditioning to be members of our family; their job is to make sure they’re serving in the interest of their constituents.

Inappropriate behavior shouldn’t be condoned, but we should be less infatuated with politicians’ personal lives and more concerned with whether their political agenda is one we can agree with.

Inevitably, a politician’s moral character will always play a role in his or her electability, but what they do outside the office should play a limited role in our decision, until of course their behavior contradicts their public responsibilities.

_Nishat is a senior in LAS._