SEX AND POLITICS – WHY WEINER LOSES AND SPITZER WINS.

SEX AND POLITICS – WHY WEINER LOSES AND SPITZER WINS.

There has been an unprecedented outcry against Anthony Weiner’s Democratic candidature as Mayor of New York. What is so unusual about this ballyhoo is that it has been lead by Democrats who were also in the forefront of forcing Weiner’s resignation from Congress. Also the media, including the influential New York Times, have made unprecedented demands for his withdrawal from the mayoral race. Weiner’s standings have dropped dramatically in the polls and the question is why. As bizarre as Weiner’s behavior is, it pales in comparison with other politicians’ sexual indiscretions in the past, all of whom received a pass.

In contrast to Weiner former New York Governor and Attorney General Elliot Spitzer, who is also returning from sexual disgrace is being allowed to proceed in his bid for Comptroller of New York finances, almost unhindered by the Democratic Establishment and the media.

Weiner’s potential slide into political oblivion goes against all the conventional political wisdom and precedent. (And, for the moment Jay H. Ell will not belabor the precedent). In the past politicians’ sexual foibles has either been ignored or after pleading mea culpa, with or without a respectable lapse of time, all is forgiven. The concept that everyone lies about sex is accepted and that sexual lies, even under oath, are different from other lies. The conventional wisdom states further that regardless of the sturm and drang the misadventures have stirred up, the electorate eventually ignores the lapses and separates the politicians’ persona from their effectiveness as legislators. Political pundits, psychologists and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all have all offered explanations as to why this occurs. None of them however can explain why the electorate is buying into Weiner’s failure at redemption.

THE “SINS” OF WEINER AND SPITZER.

For those few on the planet that are unaware of Weiner’s sins, he texted or sexted to use the modern parlance explicit sexual messages, sometimes with photographs of his crotch and even his genitals, (that are ostensibly very impressive). He never touched anybody. Everyone involved was involved consensually although some are disillusioned with him now. In the grand scheme of things all relatively harmless, although gross behavior by any standards. He also continued this behavior after resigning from Congress.

Elliot Spitzer by contrast cavorted and paid prostitutes for sex, an illegal act. What made his behavior particularly obnoxious is that he held himself out as the arbiter of public morality and one of his targets was the trade of prostitution in the State of New York. This at the same time that he was using the prostitutes’ services.

BOTH WEINER AND SPITZER HAVE FOLLOWED THE  “CONVENTIONAL WISDOM” SCRIPT.

Both of them have made repeated statements admitting wrong and apologizing– a supposed requisite for redemption. Both of them have had support from their wives also a supposed prerequisite for savior. Weiner did not only have his spouse standing by her man but she held a press conference. Both of them have waited a respectable length of time before venturing into the public arena. And generally they have followed the redemption script in all areas.

THE SCRIPT IS A MYTH.

* Stand by your man.

The “standing by your man” as a prerequisite for salvation is a myth. - Take two recent examples, Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Mark Stanford both had public wars with their wives. The latter the former Republican Governor from South Carolina, a centerpiece of the evangelical bible belt, committed heinous offences as compared to both Weiner and Spitzer. On Government time he was incommunicado, ostensibly on the Appalachian trails. Instead he was AWOL in Argentine continuing a longstanding affair with his Argentinean mistress. His wife divorced him and even threatened to run against him. Stanford was handily elected as a Republican congressional representative for South Carolina.

* Lend dignity to the office

Another implicit tenet of the script is that the “offender” must still lend dignity to the office. The New York Times, in an editorial, maintained that Weiner could not carry on the tradition of New York’s last two distinguished mayors Rudi Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg who graced their residence Gracie Mansion. As Lawrence O’Donnell pointed out Rudy Giuliani was forced out of Gracie Mansion as a result of his flagrant public flaunting of an affair with his mistress. - His own wife not accompanying to mayoral functions. He moved into an apartment that he shared with two gays creating even more of a raucous. The influential New York Times, as did the media in general, ignored all of Giuliani’s transgressions at the time and until now. Why?

* Don’t do it again.

Yet another unwritten part of the holy grail of redemption is that once you confess to your “sins”, you implicitly vow to never commit them again. Weiner broke this convention by sexting at least three of his admirers with his “goods” after his “mea culpa”. Now this cannon is broken again and again.

The most celebrated example of the nullification of this edict is Bill Clinton. Bill is now the most popular politician in the USA. Not only is he associated with economic growth in his Presidency but with his Foundation has become an international icon. Bill’s

Foundation is accredited with George W. Bush, Bono and Mandela with getting to the bottom of treating Aids internationally. However, his record with sexual indiscretions is the longest. He was incontrovertibly involved in a 12-year affair with Jennifer Flowers and was caught up in a tawdry sexual harassment case with Paula Jones as well as a credible accusation of rape. None of these he publicly acknowledged or apologized for. The only time he apologized about anything, after a celebrated public denial, was his relationship with Monica Lewinski. This after his DNA was found on her dress. Yet not only at the time of all of this and to this day he is numero uno in American politics. He is acknowledged as ensuring Obama’s re-election and he is a very powerful bow in Hilary’s 2016 election bid.

* Likeability.

Both Spitzer and Weiner are not particularly “liked”. They are both arrogant in their own unique ways. Stanford too comes out as a narcissistic individual. So there is no doubt that likeability is an important variable, particularly in a one on one race, but it is far from definitive in an electoral situation.

* Recent History

It is fair to say that for almost the last century Presidents have been involved in sexually questionably activity. Eisenhower had a “relationship” with his British female chauffeur. A Movie was made about it, in the 50’s, that all that put them in bed. Kennedy’s sexual exploits were legion. Reagan had a sordid divorce. Johnson was known as a gross “grabber”. Daddy Bush’s alleged affairs have been included in more than one book. Clinton has already been discussed. So why is poor old Anthony Weiner with his childish sexting such an inexcusable pariah?

WHY?

The reason for this supposed anomaly is a lot simpler than the media would believe. If they would reflect on the above the public appear to be taking less and notice of them and their “exposures” and inconsistent interpretations of the facts. The New York Times hypocrisy in ignoring Clinton’s, Spitzer’s and Giuliani’s foibles, for example and maintaining a holier than thou attitude to Weiner’s childish behavior is not lost on the electorate.

The reason the public are abandoning Weiner is not because of his transgressions, per se. It is rather on the cardinal criteria they use to judge public officers. This relates to their effectivity as legislators rather than their private behavior. Clinton, in common with the aforementioned Presidents, Spitzer and Stanford delivered to their constituents.

What has Weiner done? He has been involved in New York politics either on the City Council or a Representative of Congress since 1991. In that time he has been a forceful articulate supporter of many causes. His liberal position should make him an ideal candidate for New York City’s highest office. However at the end of day, after over 20 years he has not made his mark as a leader of any significance. He has shown promise from the word go but has provided no evidence that he has a plan for New York further than his populist rhetoric.

Thus he has very little to differentiate his limited public record from his reckless private persona. The electorate recognizes this. As the record shows the media created script does not persuade them to vote for or a reject a candidate. After all good legislators help their communities! Why should they punish themselves and their society because of some- ones personal misbehavior? This is consistent with their belief that where you are an effective public servant your private life is your own business. Weiner in spite of his name recognition was not an effective public servant. The only resume he has to show is his articulateness, arrogance and his erratic private behavior.

The New York Times in their unprecedented intervention in a situation of this nature would have done well to point this out rather than to say he has not the dignity to grace Gracie Manor. It is not lost that they have said nothing about Spitzer’s run that is backed by highly effective terms of service to the State of New York.

UPSHOT

So the central concept remains intact. If the politician is an effective legislator his private life is irrelevant. - This, notwithstanding the press hysteria that might accompany sexual indiscretions of the candidate. If the candidate has no record to speak of then his or her behavior may well have an impact. This concept appears to hold true even in the most conservative of constituencies, where ostensibly these social issues are paramount. However, all the other conventional wisdoms such as, apologize repeatedly and “stand by your man” do not hold scrutiny. They may help but are hardly the Holy Grail.

So if Anthony Weiner could have had some major legislative achievements behind him or some leadership positions to talk about the electorate would be taking him seriously as they seem to be comfortable in separating a politician’s private and public persona. Maybe if he could come out with some comprehensive plan to “save” New York the electorate might perk up its ears but until that happens the only thing that stands out about him is his disgusting behavior.

TRAYVON - ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW

The Trayvon Martin trial where a 17-year-old African American male, who was doing some shopping during the half time of a televised NBA basketball game, was killed by a Hispanic neighborhood watchdog, George Zimmerman, has riveted the nation for the past three weeks.  It was the racial make up of the dramatis personae involved and the circumstances of the murder itself that created this intense fascination and intrigue. The whole issue of racial profiling and gun control was again front and center in the public arena. (Blog: Trayvon Martin and the America Justice System).

George Zimmerman was ultimately found not guilty of all charges.

THE FACTS

The following facts are incontrovertible:

• George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
• George Zimmerman had seen someone walking in this gated area that was wearing a hoodie whom he believed was “suspicious”.
•  Zimmerman relayed his suspicions to the Police Dispatcher who told him not to approach this ‘suspicious’ individual.
• Zimmerman ignored this advice and followed the hooded “suspect” in his car.
• Zimmerman has made it clear at one stage or another that he had already concluded that the hooded individual was a criminal element. He making statements such as “these fucking punks” always get away.
• Zimmerman did get out of the car and an altercation ensued that resulted in the death of Travyon Martin
• The prosecution maintained the act was criminal and the defendant maintains it was self – defense.

INITIALLY NO CHARGES WERE LAID

The reason that there was even a trial at all was because of the outrage that this set of circumstances provoked. The police accepted Zimmerman’s account of the events and that he acted in self-defense. No charges were laid. All hell broke loose as a campaign was waged at the injustice of what was argued as the racial profiling and murdering of an innocent black teenager. Even the President weighed in empathizing with Trayvon”s family. A television blitz lead by the Reverend Alan Sharpton ensued. Also mass meetings were held. Sides were taken and Fox predictably showed Zimmerman in a favorable light. However the protest bohaai was too loud to ignore and the Florida Governor stepped in and appointed a special prosecutor. Charges of Second Degree Murder were laid.

The Public, in general, believed that the issue of whether a black teenager, who was going out shopping in a respectable neighborhood, who was not acting in a criminal manner and minding his own business could end up shot dead by a neighborhood watchdog who had been told by a police dispatcher to leave him alone, needed legal recourse

Justice needed to be done.

(Any non -American they would also want to know how on earth could such an undisciplined individual be in possession of a concealed weapon. However, in the context of American gun laws and Florida’s “stand your ground defense” law all this not even a legal issue).

THE TRIAL.

The trial was a dramatic affair portrayed on several news channels, minute by minute, with comment from endless legal analysts and experts in one area or another. The clashes between opposing counsel and defending counsel and the judge made stark theater and pushed the ratings up further.

Zimmerman wisely chose not to give evidence so it is fair to say that no-one will ever really no what happened once he elected to get out of the car. Both sides passionately tried to smear the character of their opponents and both sides defended their own persona.  Zimmerman had given an explanation to the police that had been videotaped where the prosecution maintained that he lied again and again.  It is fair to say that neither side could conclusively argue their version of the actual fight and the circumstances that lead to Zimmerman shooting an unarmed teenager. Trayvon was dead and Zimmerman had argued to the police and through his counsel that he had been attacked and feared for his life so he shot him.

The Judge gave endless rulings but two were to prove crucial in Jay H Ell’s opinion. These rulings affected the arguments or the theories of the defense and the prosecution. The ruling favoring he defense was that race was not to be an issue in this trial. This judicial edict would be to Zimmerman’s immediate and long-term benefit. The prosecution gained enormously by the fact that they could add manslaughter, as an alternative charge should the jury not believe that they had proved second-degree murder.

LEGAL POSITION.

In order to find Zimmerman guilty the jury would have to have believed, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he acted criminally either by a criminally negligent action or murder.

Murder in the second degree involves a depraved mind in addition to the killing of the victim neither by accident or self defense. In other words although the murder wasn't planned there was malice or prejudice for example in the defendant's mind. Manslaughter is a criminally negligent action that the defendant should have known that his illegal act could have killed the victim. The difference really boils down to whether an individual, for example can be proved to be a rascist and then illegally kills a victim or whether he or she perpetrated an act, negligently, without having any agenda.

ARGUMENTS OR THEORIES OF THE TWO SIDES.

The prosecution wanted the jury to look at the whole scenario from the moment Zimmerman espies Trayvon and calls the dispatcher. How he defies the dispatcher matters and his statements speak to his state of mind - how “these fucking people always get away”. He then follows Trayvon, gets out of the car, gun and all, has a fight and then shoots him. Taking this whole scenario into account there was a strong argument that for at least manslaughter even though it is a bit thin for secondary murder.

The defense would have liked this all to begin at the time of the fight. Remember they argued that it was not illegal to follow some one in a car. They argue that Travyon was on top of Zimmerman and the latter feared for his life and shot him. That was Zimmerman’s untested story and Travyon was dead so he had none to offer.

If the jury as they obviously did, believed that legally this episode started at the fight and that they could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had not acted in self-defense they had to find him not guilty.

LEGAL BUT NOT JUST

So Zimmerman, as some of the legal analysts believed he would be, was found not guilty. His behavior although erratic, provocative and irresponsible, and even though those behaviors ultimately lead to the death of Trayvon, was found not to be criminal. The issues of race and guns that this case brought forth are left hanging and the impact on society is still to be seen. To a large extent society is responsible in allowing an obviously undisciplined individual to be armed and provoke a situation that resulted in the death of a law-abiding teenager, who till confronted, was minding his own business.

This death is on the conscience of society and could happen again and again unless the circumstances that surrounded it are rectified. The behavior of Zimmerman at the very least should be legislated as criminal harassment  - following and confronting someone, gun at the ready, who was obviously not engaged in criminal activity.

As for guns Jay H Ell has blogged from the word go that the situation is untenable, (Blog: Guns: Obama, The NRA, GOP = Stalemate), but if the massacre of kindergarten children could not get Congress legislating on this issue, nothing will. Even worse is the “stand your ground” legislation that allows all these gun toting cowboys to shoot anyone as long as they can reasonably claim that their frame of mind feared for their lives and it is then up to the prosecution to prove otherwise.

Sadly in spite of Zimmerman’s acquittal the overwhelming perception is that was the laws and superb lawering that saved him and not justice. The acquittal itself is not a slap in the face of the American people as Reverend Sharpton maintained but rather a reflection of the laws. Dare Jay H Ell say that it is the perception that it is the white man’s laws that led to Zimmerman’s release.

RESPONSE

President Obama has called for calm, reinforcing the plea of Trayvon’s family. He believed that it was time to once again to reevaluate the gun laws of the country. Elliot Spitzer former Attorney General and Governor of New York maintained that the justice system had failed. Four hundred thousand people had, within twenty-four hours of the verdict, signed a petition for the Federal Attorney General to lay a charge of violation of Trayvon’s civil rights by Zimmerman. Protest meetings have been arranged throughout the country.

Thus far everyone is hoping that we will not get a repeat of the Rodney King riots of 1994. One has to realize that regardless of the outcome of the trial itself it revealed the defects in the justice system and the need to once again look at gun laws and the “stand your ground” legislation.  Every parent has to fear that this could happen to a child of his or hers. White children wear hoodies too you know.

One can just pray that another victim of gun violence will have not been martyred in vain. Jay H. Ell believes, however, that the Trayvon Martin death is at least the beginning of a watershed event in American history. It is up there with the murder of Medver Evers, the Rosa Parks bus incident and the like. There are just too many forces up in arms and it coincides with the reform of the guns laws movement. Also there is the chance that Attorney General Eric Holder might just take a chance and prosecute Zimmerman on civil right charges that go to the core of what appeared to be his profiling of a young teenage African American, who was minding his own business and ended up dead as a result of Zimmerman’s stereotyping and prejudices.

MIDDLE EAST - EGYPT AND THE USA

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse in the Middle East, (Blog: Syria, Russia and Iran – Second Cold War In The Making), a coup broke out in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood had been slowly lining up with the forces of darkness. The West with Israel seemed to be on the loosing side in what was gearing up to be a new world order and then suddenly the Brotherhood were no more. The Brotherhood’s victory in the first Egyptian Democratic elections had been ascribed to the fact that they were the only organized political party participating. It was generally thought that they only had about 25% support of the Egyptians yet they won even though they were not representative of the forces that had precipitated Mubarak’s fall.

MORSY NOT DELIVERING

The first elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsy seemed to be steering a more moderate path in Islamist terms but was slowly but surely moving towards a theocracy. He was also reportedly leaning towards Iran. This was not what all those millions that had protested in Tahir Square wanted. Both a dictatorship and a theocracy are autocracies and why replace one totalitarian regime with another? Morsy also was getting nowhere fast in democratizing Egypt and the people were getting restless. The economy was not improving. But what were their options? They had asked for democratic elections and got them. They just did not like the results. How many times does that happen in Western Democracies and one is saddled with the “bums” till the next election.

DEMOCRACY EGYPTIAN STYLE

What happened next was inconceivable in the history of politics, thirty million Egyptians took to the streets and protested against the Morsy regime. This was not what they had risked their lives over to get rid of Mubarak. Thirty million people are one helluva lot of people. The Egyptian population is said to be 84 million so that 30 million must represent, about as close to as makes no difference to the number that voted in the election. Thus you had a mass meeting of the populace that was bigger and more representative than those of the City State democracies such as Athens. This outpouring of sentiment allowed the military to step in and say this was not a coup but rather a response to the will of the people.

How on earth did 30 million people all of a sudden take to the streets? If a few hundred thousand people throng the mall in Washington it is considered a seminal event. The organization that is needed to have affected this has to have been humungous. It is obvious that the social media played a big role. Also there has to be a tremendous anger and frustration amongst the populace to once again rise up, in even greater numbers than before, to challenge the status quo.

Now in the final analysis it does not matter what the majority think if they have no guns to back them. Look what happened in Iran after Ahmadinejad was elected in the last but one Iranian Presidential election. By Ahmadinejad’s own subsequent admission he did not receive the majority of votes and there were prolonged, street protests. The latter were all brutally beaten and gunned down. So the broad will of the people does not count for much unless it is backed up with guns. In Egypt the military are independent and powerful. They stepped in when it was obvious that Mubarak no longer had the populace’s support and they have stepped in now that Morsy has even less.

So the variable here is the military. It is very difficult to challenge their logic as they axed Mubarak, who was one of them, ostensibly on the basis of mass public opinion. It does however add a new dimension to the definition of democratic politics. In the process a secular ElBaradei has replaced a theocratic Morsy.

MESSY OUTCOME

So at the end of the day where does this leave us?

Forceful changes of a regime never seem to improve the situation. Morsy’s supporters have predictably not accepted that the military action was taken in good faith. They did after all win the election. There have been clashes and over 50 of the Brotherhood are dead. Both sides are blaming one another. How this will all be resolved is still up in the air.

Basically, the problem initially arose way back when the Egyptian electorate was ill prepared with very little organization to channel their political views into coherent political parties. The nearly 80% of the electorate were not able to put up a united front against the organized Muslim Brotherhood.  All this was a recipe for the subsequent disaster.

One can only hope that this does not degenerate into Syrian type situation with several factions fighting and the situation being exploited by Jihadis. A worse case scenario would be that there is ongoing civil war in Egypt with the Jihadis becoming prominent and influential and spearheading the Muslim Brotherhood cause.

THE USA

Egypt is undoubtedly the most important Arab country in the region. How this situation is going to be brokered is totally up in the air. The Obama administration having cautioned against military intervention, in the first place, now have not called the intervention a coup. Obviously, if all goes well they will support the outcome but if the cookie crumbles the wrong way they will condemn the action. Congress, generally, seems loathe stopping Egyptian aid so the consensus appears to be that this was not such a bad thing after all.

Whatever way it goes the USA will not be involved on the ground. It is obvious that the USA is removing themselves from the world trouble spots in haste. They have even told the Afghanis that they are considering leaving no troops or advisors in Afghanistan after 2014. Obama has taken a decision to call it quits in these no – win situations. 

The Egyptian situation in addition to the Syrian travesty will be resolved, for practical purposes in those countries. America have gone into an isolationist mode or as they would put it - a non-interventionist position. The USA after all their posturing have not done too much after Assad crossed the line in the sand with chemical weapons and no one seems to care.

As is customary with the present day media they only cover one issue at a time so that Syria is off the radar. If Assad wants to use chemical weapons this is the time. The media are not interested. In fact they are also not much interested in Egypt. The issue du jour is the Zimmerman murder trial of Travyon Martin. (Blog; Travyon Martin and the American Judicial Process). So in the same vein the Egyptian military could put the torch to the Brotherhood and it would barely make the news.

The only certainty is that the Middle East will force its way back onto center stage regardless of whether the media focuses attention on it. How all the pieces of the puzzle will resolve and how Iran’s grab for Muslim and major power status will end is still all up in the air.