Why do people like Eliot Spitzer have sexual liaisons that jeopardize their reputations and their positions of power?
The number of men whose lives have been rocked by sexual adventures beyond their marriages is significant enough to raise questions about the wisdom of our (United States) national norms about sex and marriage. Wikipedia has a
long list (scroll down past political scandals to sex scandals.) Bill Clinton,
Larry Craig ,
Jim McGreevey,
Mark Foley, are just a few well known recent ones. We also have clergy. Among the Christian evangelists, some of the famous names include
Ted Haggard,
Jim & Tammy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. The Catholic church is still reeling from the impact of clergy having sex with young boys and girls.
Why does this happen?
- Lust. Some male readers are shaking their heads, I'm sure, that I would have to ask such a question. Sex is an instinctual drive that can take over someone, blocking out all other pulls on one's conscience until it is satisfied.
This surely explains some of it. But there are other factors too, I suspect, acting in various combinations with lust.
- Power. Why do we know about some people, but not about others? I'm sure that some sexual adventurers believe they are so powerful that nothing can touch them. In part this goes along with the belief that they won't get caught. And politicians' sex lives were not covered in the past the way they are today. John F. Kennedy's liaisons were known by the press, but were off limits. John H. Summers writes in the abstract of his article that
By the beginning of the twentieth century, by contrast, revelations of sexual turpitude among the most prominent elected officials had begun to disappear from public life. Whereas Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, and other members of the nineteenth-century political elite negotiated their reputations among a broad array of publics, in the new era men such as Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy benefited from this more circumspect pattern in political speech.
Surely, Bill Clinton assumed, when Monica Lewinsky presented herself in the Oval Office, that no one would find out. And when they did, he used his power to hang onto his office. I assume that Larry Craig assumed know one would know who he was and that he would not get caught.
For some politicians, everything is about power, and getting the power to do what you liked, even flaunting it. Certainly, the Congressman Charlie Wilson, portrayed comically by Tom Hanks in the recent movie, didn't hide his sex life from the world. But he had the advantage of being a bachelor.
But I think there is also another category worth considering.
- Guilt. I'm not sure this is the right title. This is the category for the men who are feeling conflicted by the gap between how they present themselves and how they really are. Hypocrisy. This is probably the major issue for married homosexuals. In 1980, when we spent a year in Washington DC, Robert Bauman (R-MD), was caught cruising for gay prostitutes in the car with his official Congressional license plate. Bauman was known for his anti-gay rhetoric. I can't help but think that, at least subconsciously, he wanted to be outed. And Gary Hart challenged the press to cover him closely if they thought he was having an affair - and they found him boating with a woman other than his wife. It's easier for some people to have the cover pulled off than to take it off themselves. Or maybe the risk makes it more exciting.
So what is Spitzer's story and should he have resigned? Spitzer prosecuted prostitution rings like the one he used. Perhaps he thought he understood how things worked well enough that he could get away with it, perhaps he thought he was too powerful. But it seems Spitzer was a real moralist. From
LoHud.comThis guy was ostentatiously Mr. Morality," says Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "This is feet-of-clay kind of stuff. Like, 'Boy, this guy has been telling us how pure we ought to be - look at him!' "
Some have argued that moral crusaders are out there to cover up their own sins. The repeated use of the word 'shocked' in the news responses to the disclosures about Spitzer certainly confirm his success in this.
My guess is that Spitzer's motives were a combination of all three of these. But should we continue to go after politicians for their sexual transgressions? Shouldn't we consider that part of their private lives as most of the rest of the world does? The basic argument - if he cheats on his wife, he would cheat on the rest of us - may hold some validity. But for everyone who has succumbed to their own personal vice - here's a reminder of
Catholic Church's seven deadly sins * 1.1 Lust (Latin, luxuria)
* 1.2 Gluttony (Latin, gula)
* 1.3 Greed (Latin, avaritia)
* 1.4 Sloth (Latin, acedia)
* 1.5 Wrath (Latin, ira)
* 1.6 Envy (Latin, invidia)
* 1.7 Pride (Latin, superbia)
Since I'm not a Catholic, I had to look up some of these vices to determine to whether there are degrees or whether these are considered either/or. It appears that with lust, if one's action is voluntary, that
lust is always a mortal sin. But the Church also seems to consider it particularly tempting:
The pleasure which this vice has as its object is at once so attractive and connatural to human nature as to whet keenly a man's desire, and so lead him into the commission of many other disorders in the pursuit of it.
The others -
gluttony or
wrath or
sloth - for example have different degrees. So, eating another two or three brownies does not carry the same weight as lust, but perhaps if you understand the pull of those brownies and their irresistibility, you can understand the pull of sex too.
But this is something of a diversion since the US is not bound to Catholic teachings and Spitzer is not a Catholic. According to
Wikipedia, he's a not particularly observant Jew.
But then the Old Testament figures dealt with the need for sexual adventure by having more than one wife. And some of the greatest Old Testament figures had many, many wives. So we are judging them by a different standard than we judge modern men who are expected to stay faithful to one wife for a lifetime.
He has now resigned his post. Was that the right thing to do? In terms of his office, should he be compelled to resign because of a personal act that is not necessarily related to his position as governor? I've written about
when someone should resign in a previous post. I listed three reasons for resignation:
1. They've abused the public or their employers' trust through misuse of their position - they've used their office for personal gain, and/or they have made decisions based on personal criteria, not the objective, professional criteria required.
2. They have caused harm or damage through neglect, incompetence, or other inability to do the necessary work
3. A significant portion of the public and/or the people who work with or for them no longer trust them or have confidence in them to the point that it affects the credibility of the agency or company
The key is the link between the violation and the office and the impact of the violation on one's effectiveness. If a law maker breaks a law that is more than a minor technical infraction, it seems to me that he or she has an obligation to resign. Lawmakers have an even higher obligation to obey the law than the rest of us.
I don't know that any of the three standards I proposed unambiguously would require him to resign. Sure, for some people, any moral transgression, whether it directly affects his job or not, would be reason to resign. I'm not aware of polls that suggest a significant portion of the public felt he should resign. And I'd guess many of those who did, felt that way, not because of the activity, but because he'd pissed them off somehow enough that they wanted to see him publicly harmed. Perhaps there is a law that was violated that Spitzer knows he will be indicted for.
One factor that isn't included in those three standards above is hypocrisy. If there is a reason for Spitzer to resign it would be that he was so moralistic and had gone after prostitution rings and the men who used them. This is certainly a factor people have used, say, in the Larry Craig case. It isn't that he solicited gay sex in the rest room that they saw as such a problem, (well many did) but that he did so while being an outspoken anti-gay advocate.
Spitzer's resignation does quickly remove a political cloud over New York, allows the state to focus on business and not on scandal, and also allows him time to make amends to the people most directly affected by his actions - his wife and daughters. In that sense, he has taken a road that too many others have not taken.
For a different perspective, recently a Thai politician, the
Governor of Bangkok, resigned.Apirak Kosayodhin decided to suspend his work as Bangkok governor on Thursday after the Assets Scrutiny Committee (ASC) decided to press charges against him in connection with the controversial fire trucks and boat procurement for the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration.
The Thai newspaper,
the Nation, has an online poll on what people think about the resignations of Apirak and Spitzer.
I think it is good when a politician shows responsibility. I really like Apirak. He has been working well for Bangkok and I hoped he would not resign. However, his case cannot be compared with that of the New York governor because he has been found guilty, Apirak has not.
Sopidnapa Chumpani
Actress
-----------------------------------------
The moral degree of our politicians, I believe, is below zero. They're shameless. We're in a 'demon'cracy, not democracy. I'm working on a series of paintings called 'Dark Period' to satirise these shameless powerful men.
Vasan Sitthiket
Artist and founder of the Artists Party
-----------------------------------------
People will forgive politicians if they admit their guilt. But the bottom line is people are more concerned with what these politicians do for the country. Their personal life is secondary. Take Clinton, for example. People seem to forget his scandals as his actions spoke louder.
Tamarine Tanasugarn
Tennis player
-----------------------------------------
What the two have done is right. It will allow investigators to act
without interference. Top officials, if found guilty, should be punished more than ordinary people. But, I don't think Spitzer needed to quit. He should just apologise to his wife.
Chantawipa Apisuk
Empower Foundation
-----------------------------------------
Politicians caught in a scandal don't have to resign. Clinton did not quit over his relationship with Lewinsky. Unlike Apirak, other indicted people are not serving in posts linked to the fire-vehicle scandal any more.
Pongthep Thepkan-chana
Spokesman for Thaksin Shinawatra
-----------------------------------------
I admire Apirak. His self-suspension will set a new standard. I think Spitzer's quitting will remind others to restrain themselves over sex. However, Thais don't pay much attention to the sexual exploits of high-ranking officials. I want the public to condemn this.
Supensri Pungkoksung,
Friends of Women Foundation
-----------------------------------------
If Apirak quits, it means he might be involved in corruption. If he was not, he should not fear investigation.
Meanwhile, the New York governor's resignation was a show of responsibility, even though buying sex is normal for men. But it was not appropriate.
Wantee Supada
Bangkok street stall owner
-----------------------------------------
Though politicians are believed to be involved in corruption, I am not convinced Apirak is in this case; he was forced to follow procedure.
The New York governor's resignation is a good example of politicians taking responsibility for their mistakes.
Bongkotrat Chusai
University student
-----------------------------------------
Politicians should wait to be convicted before resigning. How can the country develop if politicians have to quit in order to fight allegations?
Sombat Nongkomma
Cobbler
Daily Xpress
+Coucal+2.jpg)
