Divorce and the Mayor

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has been quiet about his marital problems, as is his right. But even to outsiders, it seems obvious that, at the very least, his manic schedule had to have exacerbated whatever marital troubles already existed. We've seen countless stories over the years about how Antonio is a tireless mayor, working 16 hours a day, seven days a week, flitting from event to event, in town and out. That sort of absence would take a toll on even the strongest of families.

So it's telling when, in a Sunday Daily News story, the mayor remarks: "All I will say, (is my divorce) has not been a distraction in my job as mayor."

OK, but has your job as mayor been a distraction to your marriage? And which is more important?

"My concern is my family," Villaraigosa adds, "and my kids have been great about this."

Meaning ... what ... that they haven't complained much? They've kept their devastation to themselves? They haven't bemoaned that the few hours a day you spend at home are now in a home other than their own?

Often divorced parents think their children are fine because they suffer silently, but the evidence suggests that the effects of divorce on children can be devastating.

In the same Sunday article, Democratic political consultant Joe Cerrell says, "Look at the people running for president. A lot of them are divorced. There is no lasting impact."

By this I assume Cerrell means divorce has no lasting impact on a candidate's political career, which seems to be true. This is the essence of what Antonio is saying, too -- "Look, I can get divorced and still be a great mayor!" I don't dispute these claims, I just think they're off-focus. For the children of divorce, and I am one, the impact is certainly "lasting."

The pols and the pundits alike seem to be more focused on the future of Villaraigosa's political career than on the future of his family -- and that's precisely the problem.