Any New York state resident will tell you that this is not their proudest year. Last March, the entire nation was glued to their TV as news of scandal at the highest level of state government began to unfold. The Spitzer “Client 9” tale had all the ingredients of a raunchy motion picture, from adultery and prostitution, to alleged illegal use of state funds. It was so big that people remember where they were and what they were doing when they first heard about it. Lucky for me I was at Atlanta airport on my way to Arizona – as far away from ground-zero-without-leaving-the-country as possible. Away for a week and back just in time to see Paterson carry the torch and begin the healing process.
Governor Paterson had everything we wanted in a successor. He was in good terms with senators from both parties and didn’t have the enemies-in-high-places problem Spitzer had even before the scandal. He was black and legally blind, both a first for the state’s highest office and soon we were talking about this historic moment rather then the series of historic moments that led up to this one. We were re-assured that “blind” justice was here to replace corruption.
And then poof, it was all gone. Well, it was supposed to be at least. Just hours after delivering a moving Obama-esque speech (which he had to memorize) and asserting his role as governor, news of adultery and scandal again began to surface. He admitted to reporters that both he and his wife had extramarital affairs and that in fact he had several of these including a romantic affair with a Spitzer staffer who was still at her job. The news spread like wild fire and quickly members of the state assembly were asked about how they are going to deal with these revelations. Are they going to impeach for ethical reasons? How about a vote of no confidence (if there is such a thing in our system of government)? How about the masses, will they stand for this?
Well to be brief, the answers were “No, No, and yes.” The response was quite simply “Well, at least he didn’t pay for it” or “nothing illegal here.” So there you have it, the great state of New York is once again leading the way in teaching young kids everywhere that it’s o.k. to cheat on your spouse so long as you don’t pay for it.
–Saria
Granfalloon 
thefossil said
I suppose this means that when he runs for election for the following term, he can feel secure knowing that he will get the ‘swing’ vote.
halalmeat said
Thats a good one… didn’t see it coming. Let’s see how many of these we can get.
ojcomputer said
Politicians are a reflection of society. To be perfectly honest I’m actually disappointed that Spitzer had to resign due to the public outcry of his shenanigans. As if the public wouldn’t do what he did, with the money he was given and the women available to him.
Men cheat on their wives every day. Women cheat on their husbands every day. Its a wrong thing to do, but at the same time that shouldn’t have a bearing on what the man does for a job. Hell, Martin Luther King Jr. cheated on his wife. That doesn’t make his selfless actions and sacrifice for civil rights meaningless.
Its a personal matter that should be only between the politician and his wife, not to be judged by society.
I don’t know the details of Spitzer’s actions (i refuse to read such nonsense), but if he used taxpayer money, then there’s legitimate reason to be upset, and by all means calls for his resignation were justified.
Adultery, however, does not warrant a man to lose his job, nor does it mean he’s incapable of doing his job. It just makes him an asshole. I really, really, big asshole.
aa1283 said
although i did initially think this story was overblown and not so relevant to his public position, something about that attitude didn’t sit well with me. that we’re to tolerate promiscuity from our leaders as long as they’re doing their job right, somewhat grates on my conscience. unethical behavior in one’s private life is still a reflection of a man’s character, and this idea that we can separate character from an individual’s public life and duties is inconsistent. there are still standards that one in public office should uphold, more so than the average citizen. i understand that we live in a society long used to lowering its standards, but why should we as individuals acquiesce to attitudes that serve only to perpetuate society’s flaws? i accept that we’re not led by prophets and i agree that humans are not perfect. if an individual repents and makes amends with his/her spouse then the public shouldn’t question or pry into it. yea, MLK’s situation definitely isn’t on the same par as Spitzer’s. our former governor used public funds to carry on his illicit affairs and was linked to a prostitution ring.
i guess for me there’s still a line we shouldn’t altogether dismiss because character tells us a lot about an individual in terms of how responsible, reliable, and trustworthy that person is. if an individual is morally corrupt and consistently unethical in their personal dealings, then they should be held accountable by the public. and if an individual chooses to hold public office and to represent the masses, than that person must also accept lending their private life to public scrutiny.
i’m just sick of watching people lower their standards and willing to put up with questionable leadership because it’s the “best” we can do as a society. at the end of the day such an attitude is how “we the people” absolve ourselves of power and sink further into apathy. a lot of our social and political problems wouldn’t even exist were it not for the fact that we live in a society that respects itself so little because it thinks itself so undeserving and helpless.
thefossil said
Two points.
1. So what if Spitzer used public funds to ‘git loww, shoty got low low low’. Yes it was taxpayers money. But so are the bombs blowing up innocent foreigners. Point is, majority of the policy makers are corrupt. Its just a question of degrees.
You can look at this another way. Spitzer may have abused taxpayer dollars, and trust. But MLK abused “God’s” trust and worshipper money. So yes, Siptzer cant compete with MLK.
2. I dont think people are lowering their standards to tolerate. I think it would be more appropriate to say that people’s standards are this low. People are not after morality or virtue. After all, we live in a pluralistic free market – you cant get more open ended than that. People mostly desire being left alone so they can do what they desire to do. Often that means tolerating other peoples’ crap so they can be free from judgement for their own crap. Its the same principle as mutually assured destruction – except in reverse.
If you want a more elaborate explanation of the moral fabric of America, read Hawthorne (Scarlet Letter, Young Goodman Brown).
aa1283 said
i’m not sure i understand your argument but you seem to be saying, we live in our shit, so best we accept it and play by its rules. you explain away morality in its entirety by excluding it from a godless, market system…
well, i don’t agree that we live in a purely open-ended “pluralistic free market.” and if that is the case, so what? that’s my point, why should we put up with “mutually assured destruction?” obviously, if Clinton’s legacy could be dragged through the mud because of his moment with Lewinsky in the oval office, the citizens of this country still have a sense of moral right and wrong that they think should apply to our government and to this “free market.” (too bad we’re not nearly as critical of our presidents when it comes to policy matters that actually harm entire communities. but that’s what happens when we expect the media to be our conscience and it fails in its purpose.) that’s why we have rules to regulate and monitor corporations and although they tend to cater to private interests more often than not, they were established for a reason. somewhere at some point, the average American got screwed over by the big guys and enough Americans got upset as to cause our courts and leadership to give us the illusion of protection in the form of watchdog entities like the FDA and FCC– what that tells me is that the majority of Americans don’t believe as you do, that we live in a blameless society that is above any sort of moral reproach.
thanks for the book recommendations.
halalmeat said
I think the contrast between MLK, Clinton, Paterson and Spitzer showcases an inherent American quality that peoples in other countries may not fully appreciate: in America we value the law much more than ethics. The arguments resonating in the media are usually centered around the fact that prostitution is an illegal criminal offense but not adultery (at least in many states). In fact, Clinton was nearly impeached not because of his illicit relationship with Lewinsky but because he lied about it under oath.
There is definitely a gap between the law and ethics in any part of the world. In America, however, where the law is more transparent and accessible, the public has become very dependent on its agents. What we find happening is that people don’t feel the need to carry the burden of ethics and we let the court decide what is right or wrong for us.
deuceexmachina said
its interesting that people can actually comment that people’s private lives have no bearing on their public lives.
does no one see the connection between cheating on your spouse, and cheating the taxpayer.
somebody should look up the definition of jaded.