Spitzer Case About Public and Private Trust

Jed Rothwell, the fact that you have categories for "good people" and "bad decisions" tells me that absolute morality is working for you on some level. I, for one, am very appreciative that my wife thinks adultery and murder are absolutely wrong.

Well put and I wholeheartedly agree

Norrie the look on his face told me everything I needed to know about that relationship. She clearly looked like a woman who felt betrayed on one level or the other.

loco_moco wrote:

And despite Mr. Rothwell's attempt to wrap Spitzer in the fire blanket of "everyone else is doing it" . . .

I did not say everyone; I said that many important people do, and we need those people.

". . . the only thing that accomplishes is to acknowledge that our society is full of lying, cheating hypocrites who can't keep their peckers in their pockets."

Yes, it is full of such people. What is your point? All societies always have always been full of such people, and always will be. Like it or not, we need those people. We can't just fire everyone who does not measure up to your notion of sexual morality. Yes, you should "acknowledge" what is true, instead of living in a Utopian fantasy where people do not have illicit sex, or where everyone agrees with your sexual morality.

"What moral are we supposed to draw from that?"

The moral is that people are complicated, and sometimes good people do bad things, but we must look at the overall contribution the person makes, because it would be a terrible mistake to throw out people such as FDR and Eisenhower. That is a complicated, ambiguous moral. Your moral is much simpler. But the moral I draw is for grown-ups who live in the real world and who must make difficult decisions and trade-offs.

Suppose we had fired FDR and Eisenhower.
We might have lost WWII! Do you really think that enforcing the private sexual morality on two people is more important than winning a war? Or more important the discoveries made by Einstein? Do you think they should have cut off his salary and thrown him out of the university because he had numerous affairs? You need a sense of perspective.

"And this talk of how we can 'compartmentalize' hypocrisy and dishonesty in our private versus our public lives doesn't impress me either. Mobsters who happen to have exemplary home lives are still rightly despised for their public transgressions."

The point is we CAN compartmentalize, and we must, sometimes. And as I pointed out, a skilled soldier is a cold blooded killer on the battlefield and an exemplary citizen in peacetime. He must compartmentalize or lose his sanity. Call it hypocrisy if you like, but we would not have soldiers, police, surgeons or national leaders if people could not put aside their feelings and do what must be done. Unfortunately, this ability also makes gives us mobsters and politicians who pay for hookers, but that is the price we must pay.

Life is complicated. Simple, easy answers and absolute morality don't work.

Loco_Moco,

You've undertaken to speculate on the nature of the relationship between Governor Spitzer and his wife without, I imagine, any actual knowledge or factual basis for your comments,

Marriages are impenetrable cocoons. Outsiders have no knowledge of the contents and project their own stereotypes onto the relationship.

You wrote:

"You take a sacred vow of faithfulness and pitch it into the gutter, and you've lost any sympathy you might have hoped to gain from me."

How do you know the Spitzers made "a sacred vow of faithfulness"? History records many "open marriages" where the parties agreed that both could roam.

You'd probably guess that my wife and I made a sacred vow to stay together "til death us do part".

Actually, we wrote our own marriage vows which said in effect: "We'll stay together as long as we both feel like it".

An Italian-American politician who was present at our wedding commented as he left the ceremony: "That's not how they do it in [name of town]".

The referenced town was Catholic and blue-collar.

Despite the lack of such a vow, our marriage has lasted 34 years so far, and seems likely to continue until death does in fact part us.

So you just don't know about marriages and other people's vows or lack thereof.

It's fine if you don't like Governor's Spitzer's hiring a sexual companion. But I don't think you should assume that you know the nature of his and his wife's relationship and their promises to each other.

Regards.

Loco_Moco,

You've undertaken to speculate on the nature of the relationship between Governor Spitzer and his wife without, I imagine, any actual knowledge or factual basis for your comments,

Marriages are impenetrable cocoons. Outsiders have no knowledge of the contents and project their own stereotypes onto the relationship.

You wrote:

"You take a sacred vow of faithfulness and pitch it into the gutter, and you've lost any sympathy you might have hoped to gain from me."

How do you know the Spitzers made "a sacred vow of faithfulness"? History records many "open marriages" where the parties agreed that both could roam.

You'd probably guess that my wife and I made a sacred vow to stay together "til death us do part".

Actually, we wrote our own marriage vows which said in effect: "We'll stay together as long as we both feel like it".

An Italian-American politician who was present at our wedding commented as he left the ceremony: "That's not how they do it in [name of town]".

The referenced town was Catholic and blue-collar.

Despite the lack of such a vow, our marriage has lasted 34 years so far, and seems likely to continue until death does in fact part us.

So you just don't know about marriages and other people's vows or lack thereof.

It's fine if you don't like Governor's Spitzer's hiring a sexual companion. But I don't think you should assume that you know the nature of his and his wife's relationship and their promises to each other.

Regards.

In fact, it would be far better for Spitzer to become a polygamous Muslim, because it's infinitely more honest than being a Christian hypocrite.

And despite Mr. Rothwell's attempt to wrap Spitzer in the fire blanket of "everyone else is doing it", the only thing that accomplishes is to acknowledge that our society is full of lying, cheating hypocrites who can't keep their peckers in their pockets. What moral are we supposed to draw from that? Perfidy loves company?

You take a sacred vow of faithfulness and pitch it into the gutter, and you've lost any sympathy you might have hoped to gain from me.

And this talk of how we can "compartmentalize" hypocrisy and dishonesty in our private versus our public lives doesn't impress me either. Mobsters who happen to have exemplary home lives are still rightly despised for their public transgressions. And politicians who happen to have exemplary public agendas are still rightly dethroned when they prove untrustworthy in their private lives.

It's in the Bible somewhere: You play, you pay.

You wrote:

"If someone deceives their spouse, chances are they won't have much compunction about deceiving the public."

It isn't that simple.

FDR deceived his wife when he had an affair with Lucy Mercer, but he was one of the most honest leaders in U.S. history. He never hid or sugarcoated the truth about the depression or the war. He kept his word when he made political deals with friends and adversaries alike. Eisenhower had an affair during his term as Supreme Commander in Europe, but he did a good job. Einstein had many affairs, but when he was a work, he was utterly honest with himself and others.

On the other hand, many notorious gangsters and criminals have been very nice people in private, and loving, faithful husbands and fathers.

A skilled soldier is ruthless and cruel on the battlefield, but he may be the soul of kindness in peacetime.

Some people calibrate their morality and standards for different situations. They are not the same in public as in private, and not the same doing one job as another. This may seem hypocritical but it is the human condition, and especially people such as soldiers and police could not do their jobs otherwise.

Of course it is a serious matter that Spitzer broke the law, but it was the kind of thing that many people do, and many consider a victimless crime. If every politician, powerful business leader and preacher who did this kind of thing were found and punished, the halls of Congress and commerce would be empty. If we had subjected FDR, Eisenhower or Einstein to this "private morality" test, and thrown them out of their jobs, it would have been a disaster. You can make the case that prostitution should be legal and this should have been a private matter between Spitzer and his wife. It is a far less serious crime than betraying the public trust by stealing public money or accepting a bribe, for example.

You wrote:

"If someone deceives their spouse, chances are they won't have much compunction about deceiving the public."

It isn't that simple.

FDR deceived his wife when he had an affair with Lucy Mercer, but he was one of the most honest leaders in U.S. history. He never hid or sugarcoated the truth about the depression or the war. He kept his word when he made political deals with friends and adversaries alike. Eisenhower had an affair during his term as Supreme Commander in Europe, but he did a good job. Einstein had many affairs, but when he was a work, he was utterly honest with himself and others.

On the other hand, many notorious gangsters and criminals have been very nice people in private, and loving, faithful husbands and fathers.

A skilled soldier is ruthless and cruel on the battlefield, but he may be the soul of kindness in peacetime.

Some people calibrate their morality and standards for different situations. They are not the same in public as in private, and not the same doing one job as another. This may seem hypocritical but it is the human condition, and especially people such as soldiers and police could not do their jobs otherwise.

Of course it is a serious matter that Spitzer broke the law, but it was the kind of thing that many people do, and many consider a victimless crime. If every politician, powerful business leader and preacher who did this kind of thing were found and punished, the halls of Congress and commerce would be empty. If we had subjected FDR, Eisenhower or Einstein to this "private morality" test, and thrown them out of their jobs, it would have been a disaster. You can make the case that prostitution should be legal and this should have been a private matter between Spitzer and his wife. It is a far less serious crime than betraying the public trust by stealing public money or accepting a bribe, for example.

Exactly correct Mr. Wright.

Hmmm, what was Mr. Spitzer's biggest mistake??

He did not become a Muslim. Had he, he could have declared his call girls his other wives and been above the law at least in the Islamic world.