A costly date for Spitzer, but not so surprising
Headline: A costly date for Spitzer, but not so surprising, scientists say
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, Faye Flam, March 12, 2008
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/16590161.html
Lede:
Why would someone as rich and powerful as Eliot Spitzer put his family, his job, and his promising future on the line for an alleged $4,000 date with a prostitute?
Is this pathological or inherent in human nature?
Scientists says it’s more likely to be the latter. They attribute this kind of behavior to natural promiscuity combined with opportunity – along with a risk-taking personality common to men such as Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy. It’s what makes them seek office and what makes us vote for them.
Core Issues:
This article raises the question of whether the same qualities we are drawn to in our leaders are those that lead them to make mistakes and stray from the straight and narrow. We desire someone who is charismatic, decisive, and confident making our decisions. An individual who is unable to take risk, or who is incapable of demanding attention would never become elected. But when is this persona acceptable? Should it be only an act, a tool used in leadership that can be turned off in private, or do we expect these Type-A personalities to accept heightened fame and power graciously, without ever using it to their advantage? I am not suggesting Governor Spitzer’s actions are in any way defendable, but am brought to another key argument of illegality vs. immorality. I’ll ask which is worse in the eye of the public, and which actions are excusable…which are deplorable. We’ve already decided that political scandal is no new finding in recent years, but the immediate and widespread publication of them may be. We live in an age where nothing is sacred, nothing is secret, and we all find ourselves living under a microscope. Is this never-abating scrutiny fair to our leaders, and are some things better off unknown?
Historical Analysis:
We are inevitably drawn to powerful leaders, those we wish to be like and who make us feel powerful. We can trace this trend through history, and the 20th century is no exception. We can see the attraction to Theodore Roosevelt, whose approach to foreign policy, derived from an African proverb, was to speak softly and carry a big stick. Americans who may or may not have been confrontational were pleased with a leader who was committed to eloquent diplomacy while leveraging an underlying threat of conflict (A). This again is seen when President Truman is elected on a promise to end WWII, a promise that he delivered after having the resolve to drop “THE SUPER BOMB” on Japanese soil. As we travel forward in time we meet John F. Kennedy, a handsome young man whose unwavering confidence and classic demeanor won the hearts of a nation. JFK utilized these qualities to confront the Soviet Union head on during the Cuban Missile Crisis (6.6) – a conflict that never came to a head yet can be considered “the most dangerous moment in human history.” (B) Moving further still we come to one of our most recent presidents, Bill Clinton (or Slick Willy) who lead the country through two terms of prosperity and peace, while trading on a magnetic personality and widespread popularity.
The aforementioned undoubtedly utilized personal gifts to their advantage in political situations, but we must remember that these men are merely a subset of our own population. Like any other group, politicians may have honest moral people and deceitful sociopaths amongst themselves. It must also be understood that if a single person is able to convince an entire nation and electoral body that he is the one best candidate to represent the United States, they must have an understanding of persuasion. It is up to the individual to focus this solely upon political outlets, or choose to abuse a position of power and dominance.
Governor Spitzer’s case reminds us of this human factor in our elected officials, but also begs the question if immorality constitutes illegality and, more importantly, does immoral behavior impair ones ability to lead. We have seen both political and social scandal rock the political world before, yet each case is held to different standards. When the Watergate Scandal (7.1) surfaced Nixon was forced to resign, yet after the secret, unsanctioned land invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs failed and was made public JFK was criticized yet never held accountable. While I will agree that zero tolerance is never a wise approach to finding justice, I question who is qualified to set these standards?
It is all too often decided by the public which behaviors are unacceptable, and which can be dismissed. This is increasingly becoming an issue with the rise of internet and other communication technologies which have made instantaneous news a reality worldwide. “The technology of nonstop news and the Internet means that allegations that would have been carefully checked out a generation ago no longer are,” said James Fallows, editor of U.S. News and World Report. “We now have a 24-hour-a-day news cycle. News gets used up very quickly and there’s a constant hunger for new tidbits.” (9.1)
The world took notice of the power and reality of this phenomenon in January 1998, when one man was able to launch one of the most shocking political scandals the country had ever seen. Matt Judge had caught wind of a story the Newsweek had decided to pull, and published it on his public gossip site. It was here that the world learned the President of the United States was having an affair with a 23 year old intern, within days this story was headlining every major publication and a media storm ensued.
While major media platforms broke the Spitzer story, it was information instantaneously available to the world and he and his alleged suitor were cast into the spotlight and publicly convicted. Before the ink could dry, Spitzer was forced to resign, something Clinton was not forced into despite using the Oval office for sexual encounters and lying to prosecutors at an impeachment hearing and to the American public.
You could argue that Clinton did not break any laws with his affair, while Spitzer had paid for a prostitute which is punishable by law. However, in 2004, NJ Senator McGreevey was forced to resign after found to have extramarital relations with another man. The only difference in the Clinton and McGreevey affairs is that the latter involved homosexuality. Was this ground to make infidelity a more punishable crime?
Clinton may have gotten off easier due to the fact that he was so well liked, maintaining popularity to date. In his remaining years critics quieted and Clinton was a very successful leader. However, had he been pushed out of office immediately following scandal, we would never had seen this.
While this essay may have presented more questions than it answered, it was designed as a think piece. Think of who we want in power, think of why we want them there, and realize that they are human. Attempt to look inward before reacting harshly a rumors or news breaks. Handling a situation calmly will give all sides the opportunity to study the facts and weigh all options – and finish with a sound decision.
Connections:
Source 6.6 Cuban Missile Crisis
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/audio.htm
Source 7.1 Nixon Watergate Tapes
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/watergate.html
Source 9.1 Clinton-Lewinski Scandal/Internet Age Journalism
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/30/pandora.web/
New Sources:
