The Why of Silda Wall Spitzer (JM)

So one of the persistent stories that is popping up around the Eliot Spitzer scandal is the question of why Silda Wall Spitzer stuck by Gov. Spitzer's side. For instance, the XX Factor on Slate debated this issue to near death. From my perspective, I just kind of find the whole thing incredibly, incredibly weird.

By all accounts Silda Wall Spitzer is an extremely smart woman, though actually this is kind of irrelevant. I don't think any of us are in the position to speculate as to why she didn't kick Eliot to the curb. I also don't think it is any of our collective businesses. The truth is that the internal dynamic of a relationship and a family is quite complex. Did her hurt her? Probably. Do I know how she should feel about that? Of course not.

I find this to be an absurdly repugnant level of moralization, on the part of a lot of people I really respect. It's similar to the same group of people who chastised Hillary for staying with Bill throughout his many debacles. What makes it weirder is that the people castigated or "acting confused" about their decision-making process are usually the exact same people who deride legislating morality.

My heart goes out to the whole Spitzer family. This situation would be bad enough even if it weren't the subject of constant media attention. However, I suspect the last thing any member of the Spitzer family needs to read are columns baffled about incredibly personal and complicated decisions that the author of said column cannot possibly be close enough to know about. I think that instead of just railing against legislating morality, we also need to consider the problems of moralizing itself, on any subject. Cultural norms can be just as powerful, just as restrictive and just as hurtful as legislation, but sadly when it comes to that people just take far less care.

Schadenfreude and Sympathy for the Devil (JM)

Wall Street applauded when it was revealed that Eliot Spitzer went by the alias "Client 9". The man who had hounded them so mercilessly was himself now a victim of a Spitzer-like investigation. Articles from the shockingly unsympathetic (note sarcasm) New York Post, like this gem by notorious Spitzer-hater Charles Gasparino, discuss the "poetic justice" that Spitzer is now receiving.

Excuse my language for a minute, but this is total crap. Spitzer was self-righteous, hypocritical and certainly out to further his career. He was very hard-nosed in his prosecutions, often going a bit beyond the nebulous line of prosecutorial conduct. He is certainly receiving his just dessert for actions he took that were thoughtless, potentially criminal and simply wrong. However, this is not, in any way, "poetic justice" for his treatment of people like Dick Grasso and Hank Greenberg. Financial malfeasances on such a high level are far worse crimes than engaging in prostitution. The truth is that Spitzer's actions hurt a small segment of the population (and to some degree the people of New York), but they don't come close to types of high-end white collar crimes Spitzer used to prosecute.

It was great that Spitzer used to make Wall Street nervous. In a post-Enron world there it was comforting to know that in the governor's office there was a bulldog who did not just go after financial institutions, but understood their idiosyncrasies well enough to lay pressure on them effective. Sure, he went beyond the pale occasionally, but much like trumping up tax charges on Capone when you are fighting against that much power and wealth you often have to skirt the boundaries of the system. The system is inherently biased towards institutions of great wealth. The downfall of Spitzer was not the downfall of man who was getting his comeuppance. Rather, it was for those very actions Wall Street is so furious about that it is shame Spitzer did what he did. The lesson in this is not, "let he who is without sin throw the first stone." We are all perfectly well flawed and still there are some more deserving of good stonings than others. The lesson here, if anything, is for god sakes when you're a brilliant man don't be some damned stupid.

Noam Scheiber, Neurotic Jewish Stereotypes, Sex Scandals and Literature (JM)

In a truly weird and interesting, I guess, post on his blog in The New Republic, Noam Scheiber looks for a literary comparison to Eliot Spitzer and finds one in Alexander Portnoy. Portnoy, of Philip Roth's Portnoy's Complaint, is character who is one side attempting to be a "good Jewish boy" according to Scheiber at the same time as rebelling against the oppression of his Jewish mother. This, he says, makes a fascinating psychological model for Spitzer. To this I reply with an astounded, "I guess?" It's a compelling story, the book itself being utterly fantastic, but there's simply no internal evidence it's true. We know nothing of the psychological background of Spitzer, nor does Scheiber actually present us with anything. Of course, we'd have to be his psychiatrist or family member to even come close. My point is that this is weird and interesting, but ultimately a bit silly and maybe just a bit unfair. If successful Jew=Philip Roth character I am just going to go ahead and kill myself now.

Ultimately, this feels like a stupid game Chuck Klosterman might come up with, so if we treat in that spirit...:

Mitt Romney is Jay Gatsby
Rudy Guiliani is Inspector Javert
Hillary Clinton is Anne of Green Gables
George W. Bush is Thing 2
Dick Cheney is Col. Kurtz
Mike Huckabee is Tom Joad
John McCain is Rene Descartes
Jon Lovitz is Tim Matheson

So on and so forth, feel free to join in by e-mail or comments, I may add to the list throughout the day.

Eliot Spitzer's Choices (JM)

So by now you've probably all head about the Eliot Spitzer prostitute sex ring scandal. So I will just add a few thoughts:

1) Is there anyone in the world happier than Rupert Murdoch right now? They probably have a staff of 20 working on tomorrow's puntastic headline (my guess is Spitzer Swallows... though some have suggested that the Post wouldn't go that far, to them I reply, you just don't get the Post, do you?) Anyway, this will dominate the news for the next few weeks, making the primaries all the more interesting. I am not so sure Hillary is thrilled about a prominent Democratic sex scandal involving one of her supporters. A bit too close to home.

2) He should resign. If he doesn't his family will be dragged through hell for the next couple of years. We will all intimately know his favorite prostitute and his sexual proclivities. Moreover, nothing will get done in the legislature and chances are they will try to impeach him. Bad news for the Democrats all around. His only chance to have a bounce back political career is to apologize, resign and be reformed four or five years from now.

3) He shouldn't have to resign. Despite why he should resign, it is sad that we live in a world where that is necessary. Sexual mores and practices are just not terribly important in the grand scheme of good leadership. But upon thinking about this, my one real concern is the effect such nonchalance would have on sexual trafficking. There's little doubt that these were incredibly high-end call girls, whose lives were pretty okay (and hopefully fully consensual). However, a lot of prostitution is not this way, people who engage in such activities because of either wretched poverty or even worse, due to almost basic slavery. I still think that legalization and regulation is on the whole safer than the black market. But given the illegality of this action, the fact that he has and does prosecute people for this very crime and its effect on women in our society perhaps he ought to resign.