So former NY gov Eliot Spitzer paid for sex with a call girl? So what? I honestly don't think having sex just for the sex is worse than BOTH physically and emotionally cheating on your wife and using tax money to help fund your first class trips to Argentina (ala Sanford). What Spitzer did in no way affected his ability to do his job as governor. It was a poor personal choice of his, but I think it is a shame that he was so pressured to leave his job because of a personal indiscretion completely removed from his role as governor. Now we have David Paterson running NY and doing a terrible job, especially in such a recessionary time when people like Spitzer, who went after high finance and AIG way before they were in the news, are so knowledgeable and have had so much experience fighting against the big guys.
It is a shame he is not in office right now and everybody knows it. I don't care if you're a democrat, independent, or republican, New York would be WAY better off if he were still in office.
And here's my answer.
First, let me tell you what I'm not going to do. I am not going to answer based upon my assessment, or anyone else's assessment, of Spitzer's policies. For full disclosure purposes, I'll tell you that I agreed with some things he did and disagreed with others. And I mean that on both the substance, and the style. Further, know that I'd come to the same conclusions about a politician I agreed with or disagreed with 100%, or at least I would try to.
I'm also not going to address whether or not Spitzer was "worse" than Sanford.
I will also try to not deal with the issue on the basis of conventional morality. I have my own moral views, but I've decided I don't care much about them, especially when it comes to politicians. At this point, morally speaking I expect the worst of all politicians, when it comes to their personal lives. I used to care about such things. I don't anymore.
But, as I shall try to demonstrate, the Spitzer matter was a public one, not a private one. And that, I do care about. In fact I care an awful lot about it.
The Law
Spitzer broke the law of at least 3 jurisdictions: New York State, Washington DC, and the United States. Prostitution is illegal in both Washington and New York. The scandal did not just involve prostitution, it also involved financial improprieties that violated federal law. What brought Spitzer's activities to the attention of federal authorities? He did a money transfer that in some way related to the prostitution, then tried to get his name taken off the transfer. This set off a red flag, and the bank informed the federal government.
I remember reading this at the time, and most sources attribute this revelation to Newsday, but unfortunately the story no longer appears on Newsday's website. So examine this article on talkingpoitnsmemo.com, which quotes the Newsday story. The Newsday story was also reprinted in the 12 March 2008 issue of the Albany Times Union, located here. Be aware, though, that the Times Union's site isn't that great, so the link only works about half the time.
And let's not forget the Mann Act violation. Merely transporting young Ashley across state lines to whore for him violated a federal law called the Mann Act. Sure, it's an obscure law, and it has questionable origins. But, at the end of the day, it's the law, and Spitzer knew it, and others have been prosecuted for it, including but not limited to singer Chuck Berry. Roger Stone writes about that here.
When announcing the decision to not prosecute Spitzer for his crimes, federal prosecutors at no point denied that he broke the law; they just said it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute him, and that there was “insufficient evidence” to bring charges (which is a very different thing from saying “what he did might not have been illegal,” and in any case it feels like something that was said as part of a deal, not something that bears resemblance to reality). The exact quote is here, in a New York Times article. Also here, in a Washington Post article.
“We have determined that there is insufficient evidence to bring charges against Mr. Spitzer,” Mr. Garcia said in the statement. “In light of the policy of the Department of Justice with respect to prostitution offenses and the longstanding practice of this office, as well as Mr. Spitzer’s acceptance of responsibility for his conduct, we have concluded that the public interest would not be further advanced by filing criminal charges in this matter.”
These crimes are clear, direct, and understandable. These are not the kinds of crimes that you have to build a case for, that you have to take a lot of time demonstrating why and how they broke the law. This is not the same as “did Bill Clinton commit perjury or not,” or “did Joe Bruno 'steal honest services' or not.”
For a public official to break the law in this clear and undeniable manner causes practical issues. Not just ethical issues or moral issues or philosophical issues, but clear, practical issues. The lack of prosecution doesn't reflect the “black and white” nature of the crimes themselves.
Prostitution is organized crime. That means the customers of prostitution are vulnerable to blackmail, especially if they are famous and powerful and wealthy, because those kinds of people don't like to go to jail, and have a lot to lose by being accused of crimes. And there's maybe 10 to 20 positions in politics more powerful than that of Governor of New York, and most of those are at the national level. Even aside from the blackmail potential, Spitzer's actions means that the Chief Executive Officer of New York State, one of the most important States in the Union, was a customer of organized crime.
Think about that for a moment. The Governor of New York, a customer of organized crime. This is very much a throwback to earlier days in New York State politics, when the mafia was a player in the game, competing for attention, or cooperating with, corrupt urban political machines. With his reckless actions, Spitzer did even more damage to the reputation of a State that really doesn't need more damage done to it. A few more scandals like this, and New York will be down with Illinois.
If Spitzer were in Washington DC to meet with his drug dealer instead of meeting with a prostitute, what should our response be?
In an earlier article, I suggested that New York State needed to ask the “big questions” about ethics before we worried about the composition of its ethics agencies. However, I can think of no ethical system that wouldn't forbid a Governor violating the laws of 3 jurisdictions, for sex. This is one case where the big question already has a fairly self-evident answer.
Recklessness
Spitzer's actions betrayed a recklessness unworthy of any Governor of New York, on multiple levels.
A Saturday Night Live sketch featured Governor David Paterson asking Eliot Spitzer, “you wanted to have sex with a prostitute without a condom? That's like driving in a convertible through New Jersey!” Another Saturday Night Live sketch told Spitzer, “really Governor Spitzer? You wanted to have sex with a prostitute without a condom? That might not be scary if you were client 1, but you were client 9!”
And that's not the only way Spitzer's actions were reckless.
Let's be very cynical for a moment. Can you think off-hand of a public figure more qualified to get away with prostitution than Eliot Spitzer? I could, but not many. Do you want as Governor or any other high government official someone who knows full well how to get away with something, yet still manages to get caught doing it?
Eliot Spitzer, by virtue of being a great lawyer and a former Attorney General of New York State (wherein as part of his job he went after prostitution rings), was by any standard eminently qualified to get away with what he was doing, and to keep getting away with it indefinitely.
He didn't. Why didn't he? He was reckless. He did stupid things, and he did them in stupid ways. He should have known that he would set off red flags and violate the federal Patriot Act by attempting to have his name taken off the account transfer. He should have known that by transporting Ashley across state lines he was violating another federal law, the Mann Act. He should have known that it's bad for a Governor of New York to violate the laws of his own state, and of the jurisdiction he was in at the time.
And in fact...I'll bet he not only should have known, but did know. And he did it anyway. He knew how to get away with what he was doing. Yet he still did not get away with what he was doing.
Why? Many explanations are possible. Arrogance, a desire for self-destruction....Many explanations are possible. They all go together to some degree, I suppose.
Either way, regardless of which explanation you accept, the result was a recklessness that I feel renders someone unable to be any kind of high public official, especially Governor of a large, important State with issues in the areas of crime and political ethics. A recklessness which there is no doubt whatsoever would sooner or later have impaired his functioning as an official even if he hadn't been caught violating the laws he used to be charged with enforcing.
Hypocrisy
Eliot Spitzer was supposed to be different. He held himself up as different, he made it part of his political persona. He held himself up as the White Knight, the one who was going to “clean up Albany.” He was known as “Mr. Clean.” “The Sheriff of Wall Street.” He had more nicknames than many professional wrestlers.
But, he wasn't different, except that he maybe might have been worse than others he was supposed to be immeasurably better than. Unlike the Wall Street guys he went after as Attorney General, his conduct was clearly illegal, there could be no argument, no fancy legal maneuvering away from their illegality. In terms of being prosecuted for criminal conduct, he had his options, but they do not include “yes I did these things, but they weren't crimes.” They were definitely crimes and were definitely unethical.
In this case, hypocrisy matters. (I'm not going to address the question of whether or not it would matter in other cases.) Why does it matter here? Because his being clean was part of his political persona, part of what was supposed to make him so effective. It was part of the package that the voters of New York voted for. I guarantee you that not everyone who voted for or endorsed him agreed with everything he said, or did, or promised to do. However, I can mostly guarantee you that they all bought into his persona, to his overall package. And his being “clean” was an integral part of that package.
And, it was a fraud. If he were merely an adulterer, you could accuse me of exaggerating, but he wasn't. This is not the same as the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, wherein the politician at issue stretched the truth, but may or may not have actually lied, under oath in order to cover up a tawdry, stupid affair. That case was bad, don't get me wrong, but the Spitzer matter was worse. In the Spitzer case, the politician violated federal laws to commit and cover up violations of State and local laws. There is simply no comparison there. None. There is no way to look at this matter without concluding that Spitzer behaved hypocritically, thus violating an important part of his own political persona.
Conclusions
I could, I suppose, go on and on, just about forever, but I don't feel like it, so I hope that will suffice as an answer to the question. Why should Eliot Spitzer be demonized? See above.
I feel that Spitzer's use of prostitutes may have just hinted at larger personality issues he had, and that he may have been headed for some kind of downfall had he not cut the process short. Lucky us, potentially, that he cut it short when and how he did. If I'm right, imagine a Governor trying to deal with a fiscal crisis in the middle of some kind of political and personal meltdown. David Paterson has his issues to be sure, but I have a strong feeling that Spitzer would have ended up being worse. Whatever is wrong with David Paterson, it's not self-destructive recklessness.
Now, most of what's above is factual, and undeniable. I've tried to be clear about what my opinions are and what the facts are. If you accept all my facts, and still feel that Spitzer doesn't deserve to be demonized, then there's really not a lot I can say. We just disagree. In all likelihood, you liked and agreed Spitzer's policy proposals and found him to be an effective advocate for them, and further you are willing to overlook an awful lot, on that basis.
Lots of people think that way. There's a good case to be made for thinking that way. But I disagree. I think, whether you agree with him or not, a politician who violates the laws of 3 jurisdictions, hypocritically violates his own political persona, and engages in hyper-reckless behavior on many levels, has voided his right to hold office.
Under these conditions, when you are a public official, adultery is no longer a private matter, it's a public matter with public consequences, and a public punishment.
No comments:
Post a Comment