Johnny Carney comments over at Dealbreaker.com:
That a man so versed in the blackmail style of prosecution would so readily open himself up to that dark art is, at the very least, extraordinary. One would think that a man who deployed his aides to whisper about a corporate executive allegedly “banging” his assistant, would be wise enough to the ways of the world to avoid putting himself in a position where he could be blackmailed. That he lacked such wisdom—or ignored it—shows a reckless disregard for the responsibilities of the high office to which the people of New York elected him.
That reckless disregard is coupled in Spitzer’s character with a steadfast self-regard. Even in his brief apology, he focused mostly on how he had violated his own standards of conduct rather than those of the public’s mores and statutes. It is as if, in the kingdom of Spitzer, there is no crime worse than violating the standards of Spitzer.
He follows up with this satirical headline, which is close enough to the truth to be believed:
Eliot Spitzer vows to crack down on excess prostitute pay
Discovering that the exclusive international ring of prostitutes known as the "Emperor's Club" charged up to $5,500 an hour for their services, New York governor Eliot Spitzer vowed to put an end to this price gouging practice...
"That kind of excessive compensation is simply outrageous. Prostitution is allegedly a victimless crime,” Spitzer said in a press conference that took place only in our imaginations. “But now we see that its customers can become its victims.”
Mark Steyn:
Re that "consenting adults", nobody's business but theirs, etc, Andrew, don't forget he arranged a tryst in DC with a hooker from NY:
The governor's alleged conduct may have violated the Mann Act, which forbids the transportation of prostitutes across state lines for the purposes of sex.
Mr. Spitzer's role in procuring the train ticket could tempt any of the several federal prosecutors based between New York and Washington to try to charge the governor with conspiring to violate the Mann Act. The law, from 1910, was also known as the "White-slave traffic act," and is rarely used anymore.
"If they indicted him some place for that, that's a disgrace," a prominent defense attorney, Edward Hayes, who is not connected to the case, said. "For what, paying for the train ticket? Come on, leave the guy alone."
Yeah, but this guy never left anyone alone and contributed mightily to one of the worst trends in American justice: the metastasization of narrowly drawn laws into all-purpose blunt instruments. My friend Conrad Black, charged with "racketeering", and convicted of "obstruction of justice" by a law hitherto only used extra-territorially for witness-tampering, is merely one of the more prominent victims of the Spitzerization of federal prosecution. Almost every white-collar federal offense - wire fraud, mail fraud - boils down to "paying for the train ticket".
Jonah Goldberg:
Can I come out for a third position other than the Lopezite or Stuttafordian ones?
Intellectually I can understand the argument for legalized prostitution, even if I disagree with it. And, I can understand, even sympathize, with the view that there should be more than a rice-paper thin Japanese teahouse wall between one's private life and public life, even for politicians.
So let me concede, for the sake of argument, that Andrew is right that the law is an ass when it comes to prostitution (though if we are going to be loyal to Dickens, shouldn't that be "a ass"?) Let us also concede that it is something like a private matter for a married man to visit a prostitute (though obviously it isn't private for the wife and the kids — or for the prostitute if, as in many circumstances, she's forced into such work).
Still, to say that something is a "private matter" is not the same thing as saying something is beyond the scope of our judgment. If Tom is a drunk, it may be a private matter but that hardly means I must approve of his "lifestyle." If one of my married friends was repeatedly visiting hookers, I might say for the sake of social peace that it's none of my business, but I would still think much less of him. And, if he became more and more brazen — and hence more and more humiliating for the man's wife and family — the more likely it would become that I would feel compelled to say something.
I fail to see why it should be different for public figures. This was my central disagreement with Jonathan Rauch's "hidden law" argument saying that society should demand everyone lie about marital infidelity. Rauch wrote (I'm getting this from an old column btw):
Try a thought experiment. You're at a dinner party. In full public hearing, someone demands to know whether you're cheating on your wife. Civilized norms require you to evade the question. But suppose the boor persists, demanding an answer. If you must give an answer, civilized opinion requires you to look him in the eye and say, "Of course I don't cheat on my wife" — even if you do cheat on her. Moreover, civilized opinion is not angry with you for lying; it is angry with him for demanding to know. You are invited to the next party. He isn't.
"We therefore have a rule:" Rauch concluded, "If the adulterer and the spouse both prefer to hush up the affair, they lie, and no further questions are asked. Everybody pretends to believe them, and the children slumber untroubled by sin."
I agree with him entirely that some social deception is necessary to maintain a healthy society. But once the deception has been exposed, forcing everyone to take sides, everyone must in fact take sides. One can be humane or sympathetic, but they should also judge. Here's part of my response to Rauch:
...what this analysis really misses is that if you actually do get caught committing adultery — let alone maintaining numerous shameful affairs — than the community has an equal obligation to judge you and hold you accountable. We don't go after private stuff, so long as it is private. But when ...[cirumstances force that] behavior into public view, we must condemn it. This is the logical consequence of the "don't ask, don't tell policy" built into the heart of the hidden law Rauch exalts.
I have no problem with utilitarian arguments in support of social norms, but you can't drop the ball halfway down the field — assuming that metaphor makes any sense. Privacy needs to be protected, but we also need to be protected from what people do in private. And the only way to do that is to exact a high price on those people who openly flout conventions.
As Rauch puts it, society maintains a fiction so that children may "slumber untroubled by sin." By this he means that society upholds useful ideals even if those ideals cannot be achieved by everyone. Fine. Good. But once bad luck — or just desserts — expose your behavior and the issue is forced into public view, then society has to choose sides — against you. If there's no stigma against people who humiliate their wives, or husbands, then there's no reason to keep such things private and the whole system breaks down.
Spitzer's been caught. Maybe he was caught "unfairly" in the sense that the law against his behavior is asinine. But fair ain't got much to do with it.
Again, I can sympathize with a utilitarian argument for legalized prostitution — even if I don't subscribe to that view. But I can't subscribe to the view that just because prostitution should be legal that therefore society has to say not only is prostitution morally acceptable but that married men visiting hookers is just fine too.
This is one area where I most profoundly disagree with cultural libertarians. The more the state gets out of the business of policing the sin, the more the rest of the society needs to get into the business of condemning it.
David Freddoso (again):
I just got off the phone with Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who had plenty to say about the governor's troubles. Some key quotes:
"I don't know anyone who is more self-righteous or unforgiving than Eliot Spitzer. So he's going to have a hard time finding friends right now...
"Spitzer himself was very severe going after prostitution rings that had to do with white collar crimes. He was very hard-nosed with his tactics. To leave himself open to blackmail — putting himself and the state in a compromised position like that — it's just awful."
On Spitzer's future:
"He's going to have to resign...At one level, it has to do with his integrity and his personal morality, but I don't even want to go into that. Without even touching on that, he has to resign...I'm one of those people who actually said Clinton should not have been impeached. I try to avoid personal moral issues in politics. But prostitution rings are invariably linked to organized crime. He, as the former attorney general and the current governor, had to know about the link between organized crime and prostitution rings."
On Lt. Gov. David Paterson (D), who would be Spitzer's successor if he resigns:
"I may disagree with him on an issue here or there, but I find David Paterson to be a really decent guy. He's gone through a lot in life. He's an African-American guy from Queens who was born legally blind. I'd look forward to working with him."
No comments:
Post a Comment