New York Governor Eliot Spitzer is expected to resign today in the wake of charges he frequented a house of ill repute. Some observers seem to think that the chief problem is that Spitzer has cultivated an image of such good repute, and that the activities he engaged in were in such stark contrast to his public image.
This is certainly a problem for the soon to be ex-governor. But there are things he could have done differently that would have lessen the public consequences of his acts.
Some have suggested that Spitzer quickly develop an alcohol problem so he could enter a alcohol rehab program, which in most such cases implicitly sends the message that the person was himself a victim, and not really responsible for his actions. This would have been an excellent strategy for Spitzer's handlers to suggest if it were not for the fact that there simply was not enough time to accomplish it. Developing an alcohol problem in a 48 hour period is close to impossible.
The biggest mistake Spitzer made was in how he performed the scandalous acts in the first place. Spitzer was in engaging in heterosexual scandalous behavior. Had he, like ex-New Jersey governor James McGreevey, engaged instead in scandalous homosexual behavior, he could have counted on a better reception in the media.
As I mentioned during the McGreevey scandal, it was noteworthy that the first thing McGreevey did was to take refuge in the fact that he was "a gay man," knowing that that would lessen the criticism of his acts. It would have made his general promiscuity more palatable, since everyone knows we're supposed cut gays slack on such things, and it would also have lessened his culpability in his relationship with is wife, since we don't hold gays who leave their families to pursue a gay lifestyle to the same standards in term of keeping their promises to their spouses as heterosexuals who do it.
If you are married and commit adultery with someone of the opposite sex, it's "cheating". But if you are married and commit adultery with someone of the same sex, it becomes a matter of being "true to yourself." Being a "gay man" covers a multitude of sins.
What was Spitzer thinking?
Many are speculating that this scandal is the end of his political career, and it probably is. But it could be only the beginning of his academic career. As reported last year, James McGreevey got a teaching spot at Kean University, teaching (prepare yourself) ethics.
Surely there is such a spot for Spitzer at one of our institutions of higher indoctrination.
8 comments:
[Predictable response.]
Then what about Craig (homosexual pass?) and Louisiana's Vitter (heterosexual, prostitutes, but still around)?
The Ace of Spades HQ (quoted in CA home schooling) has this to say:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/257451.php
"I know what the liberals are asking: Why is this such a big deal, and Sen. David Vitter's previous experience with call girls isn't?
Shut up, that's why."
Why do Republicans have different standards for Democrats than for themselves and why do Democrats have different standards for Republicans than for themselves? Is there really any absolute standard of morals or ethics?
jah
There is one aspect of a nomosexual man in a traditional marriage that does not apply to a heterosexual man: the assumption that the marriage was entered into as a cover.
Do you personally support the idea that homosexuals should be in heterosexual marriages?
Jah,
In regard to Craig, I think is major mistake was not embracing his homosexuality. There was way too much denial. If he had said, "I am a gay man" and articulated the need to "be true to himself" in engaging in lewd bathroom conduct, he could have declared his solidarity in his lewdness with all those other gay men who frequent the bathrooms in places like the park in my little town of Danville to the extent that it isn't even safe to have your kids in the park anymore.
In regard to your question about Republicans having different standards for Democrats than for themselves, I'm not entirely sure I know what your referring to. Give me an example and I'll comment on it. I say same standards for everyone.
In regard to whether there are absolute standards, that's an easy one: Yes.
One Brow:
Do you personally support the idea that homosexuals should be in heterosexual marriages?
I'm not sure of your point, but if you're a homosexual then I'm a little confused as to why you would make a promise to (and essentially form a contract with) a person of the opposite sex to engage in a romantic relationship for the rest of your life.
If it is for "cover" then you ought to be ashamed of yourself for ruining someone else's life merely to look good. The problem I was pointing to had to do with the fact that you have people like McGreevey who, instead of feeling ashamed of themselves for betraying your wife and lying to them for years instead want to be celebrated for it.
Why wasn't Vitter (R) - mentioned in my first second - who also used prostitutes - not encouraged to resign by the Republicans criticizing Spitzer??
[It's not perfectly analogous, but it should be close enough.]
jah
If it is for "cover" then you ought to be ashamed of yourself for ruining someone else's life merely to look good.
The wives are not always in the dark. Sometimes they (and their husbands) think teh husbands can change if tries hard enough.
The problem I was pointing to had to do with the fact that you have people like McGreevey who, instead of feeling ashamed of themselves for betraying your wife and lying to them for years instead want to be celebrated for it.
As long as people are going to be considered second-class citizens for circumstances they can not control, there will be individuals who try to by-pass the restrictions.
Why wasn't Vitter (R) - mentioned in my first second - who also used prostitutes - not encouraged to resign by the Republicans criticizing Spitzer??
I think both parties get a double standard. Republicans get punished for engaging in homosexual behavior (but not heterosexual), Democrats for egaging in heterosexual behavior (but not homosexual).
H L Mencken:
EVEN PROSTITUTION, in the long run, may become more or less respectable profession, as it was in the great days of the Greeks. That quality will surely attach to it if ever it grows quite unnecessary; whatever is unnecessary is always respectable, for example, religion, fashionable clothing, and a knowledge of Latin grammar.
jah
Post a Comment