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.