Last week, CityLife explored why politicians cheat.

The story hung on the antics of U.S. John Ensign and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (sorry): two former family men possessed of a loyalty only as deep as their options.

We sought deeper answers. What made Ensign and Sanford risk their beliefs and (perhaps most important to these men) their careers on sex? Could we glean anything from their behavior? Did this recklessness hamper their judgment in office? Were they as risky with the people’s business as they were with their own lives?

In short: Why were they down with OPP?

In our piece last week, UNLV marriage and family therapy professor and researcher Kat Hertlein says power has a lot to do with it. If a person is already inclined to stray, as Ensign allegedly is according to a report in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, putting them in a position of power just enhances those tendencies. She says some of them believe they’ll never be caught cheating.

“For people who have that sense of power or higher position, they can get this sense of false security. They have people who can help cover their moves or help with some of the things they want to do so it’s a lot easier to hide that behavior,” says Hertlein.

Behavior, apparently, that weakens the already poor judgment both of these men are famous for: Ensign, for supporting Bush’s war in Iraq, his torture programs and the backward social views he shared with that shit kicker from Connecticut; Sanford, for that same support of the Bush regime, for refusing federal stimulus money to a state that’s among the hardest hit by the recession and for spending Father’s Day with some chick in Argentina instead of with his wife and young sons.

Today, we asked Hertlein if she’d heard about Jon Ralston’s’ interview with Doug Hampton, husband of the mother and campaign worker Ensign screwed for eight months – nearly as long as she enjoyed a doubling of her salary as one of Ensign’s campaign finance chiefs.

She had, but we really wanted to know what she thought about that puerile, hand-written letter from Ensign, dated February 2008, in which Nevada’s most notorious Promise Keeper purports to take “100% responsibility” for his actions … before urging his fuck buddy to run back to the mythical sky god who loves them all and, most of all, “wants to restore our relationships to Him.”

Hertlein, always sensible, had this to say to CityBlog about that letter:

“I think the letter is interesting for what it doesn’t say more than what it does. While Ensign writes about how he should not have done what he ‘did’, he does not actually ever (1) say exactly what actions he is apologizing for, and (2) does not actually end the relationship. When infidelity is discovered, it is not uncommon for the involved partner’s spouse to demand the relationship come to an end in some public way — either via phone call while the betrayed partner is standing there listening, or a letter than can be viewed by the betrayed partner to ensure that the appropriate actions were taken to end the relationship. Frequently, these letters detail how the interactions with the individuals who were involved should proceed (e.g., “Don’t call me or write anymore” or “I will no longer take your phone calls” etc). This letter does not have that, which suggests the relationship will continue (and, from reading the first link you sent, seems to confirm that).

“Secondly, I wonder about the part where he writes about taking 100% responsibility for his actions.  What I have observed in my practice is that the involved person is quick to say ‘I take full responsibility for everything — let’s move on’ and believe that this demonstrates accountability. Many times it doesn’t, at least not enough for the betrayed partner. Ensign’s letter is unclear about the actions for which he is apologizing (is it the sex? falling in love? is it the severance money? what?) which would detract from being viewed as honestly being accountable for his actions.”

Now that’s the first insightful view into Ensign we’ve heard all week.