A tale of two infidelities: Bill vs. Eliot
John Heileman has an article in New York Magazine listing ten reasons Eliot Spitzer was politically undone by his infidelities while Bill Clinton managed to survive his.
The most important reasons seem to be that Spitzer had already become very unpopular in New York even before the scandal whereas Clinton was riding high when the Lewinsky affair broke; Spitzer was guilty of a crime in his infidelity whereas Clinton was not (leaving aside the question of perjury for Clinton, which was secondary to the infidelity); the resignation of a governor is a less serious event than that of a President; and Spitzer was perceived as a hypocrite whereas Bill was not.
True. But the differences were even more powerful than that.
Spitzer had not only grown more unpopular and made many enemies in high places by the time his Emperor Club shenanigans were revealed, but he started out as a very different person and politician than Bill Clinton. Clinton was an affable scamp with a twinkle in his eye, elected despite his known penchant for womanizing. He was the good ol’ boy you might want to have along for a night on the town—lots of fun. People genuinely liked him.
Spitzer had not only a name and persona singularly lacking in attractiveness, but he was a very different sort of pol than Clinton. Spitzer fit perfectly in the mold of the hard-as-nails prosecutor, the crusader who might not have been the one you’d want with you when you were painting the town red, but the one you’d want out there protecting your wallet and/or your daughters.
And so Spitzer’s dalliance with a girl young enough to be his daughter was not only a sign of hypocrisy, it destroyed what was really his only selling point: his straight-laced righteousness. For Bill there was no serious conflict between his pre-Monica persona and his post-Monica one; the only difference is that he was caught in public with his pants down, as it were. Unlike the case of Spitzer, the Lewinsky affair most decidedly did not cut into the basis of his appeal. For Spitzer, the Emperor escapade was the end of his appeal.
I used the word “affair” to descrie the liason between Clinton and Lewinsky, and I think therein lies another difference. Young though she was, and intern though she was, Monica was nevertheless a consenting adult giving freely of herself (very consenting, if we can believe Ken Starr on this—and I think we can).
But wasn’t Alexandra Ashley Dupre (aka “Kristen”) also a consenting adult, more or less the same age as Monica? Yes, indeed. But she didn’t come free. In fact, she was extremely expensive. And that’s part of the point.
Prostitution—the exchange of sex for money—is a crime, although one can argue almost indefinitely about whether it should be a crime or not (victims? victimless?). But because Spitzer became governor after building his reputation as a New York State Attorney General, the idea of his engaging a prostitute rises to the level of unconscionable. A high-priced call girl operation such as the Emperor’s Club, with its seeming glamor and glitz, is still prostitution.
And so the fallen Spitzer was not forgiven and was not about to be forgiven.
Except, perhaps, by his wife and daughters. Whether that will happen remains to be seen. But, hopefully the veil of privacy will now be drawn over the family, and the next act of the drama will be carried out beyond the reach of the cameras and the tabloids.
Pingback:A tale of two infidelities: Bill vs. Eliot
Arrogance rising above loyalty, in The Age of Duplicity…
Spitzer may fade, but I bet Ashley stays out there for a while as another fine role model for the young.
sociopaths have a need for perversion, to dupe. for bill its the “look how i can screw em and they dont know”, for spitzer its letting pressure off an acting job with the payoff of having millions of worms on hooks. smart enough to actually know what his policies will do, so he waits till he reads the pain in the press. having this need makes them easier to control by older ones upon whcih they have no material, but thye have material on them as they choose that (which is why so many do things).
as far as ashley, i wouldnt be suprised that she commits suicide unless she is also a sociopath. if she isnt, when the realization that this is how she will be known forever sinks in, she may go the way that quite a number have historically
Spitzer as Attorney General was a Mike Nifong of monstrous proportions, yet he became Governor by a large majority. There’s a lesson here….
In my totally unprofessional opinion, Bill and Eliot are 2 different varieties of sociopath. Bill is the more likeable kind – sure, he wants to be bad and get away with it, but he likes to be bad because being bad is fun – for him and everyone else. Sure he breaks the rules, but in the end, everyone had a good time and has some stories to tell. He basically likes people, because people generate parties and other types of fun.
Eliot is the puritanical, anhedonic kind of sociopath. This type thinks that if it feels good it must be bad, no matter what ‘it’ is. People like Eliot think that to be mature, productive members of society they must deny themselves everything they enjoy – and they must force other people to do the same thing. Then after awhile, they start to resent giving up all joy in their life. They decide to be bad, they decide, in a very hostile way, to screw everyone who trusts them, not because it’s fun but because they ‘deserve’ some payback after sacrificing so much.
Ashley doesn’t sound like a sociopath. She wanted to be a performer. The spotlight is on her now. She’s going find an agent and she’s going to smile.
Pingback:Exit Zero
I’m debating whether I prefer to explain the difference between Clinton and Spitzer as Machiavellian or just use the Discovery channel for inspiration
Machiavelli argued that the ruler must be either feared or loved. He favored fear, love is fickle and cannot be created on demand as fear can. Machiavelli died penniless and powerless.
Bill Clinton, for reasons that escape me was well-loved by many. I don’t get it, but it was indeed true. People will sacrifice themselves for such an ally. NOW, for example, threw out every part of their agenda except abortion in order to support him. Other groups and politically influential individuals made similar sacrifices of their agenda and good name.
Spitzer had only fear to offer. There is no one who will sacrifice himself for another’s power. When that power is threatened he has no reward to offer those who remain loyal, or more the case bullied.
Or we just go to the Discovery channel. If you threaten a herd animal, the rest of the cape buffalo will surround and defend him.
A wounded hyena can hope only that he won’t be eaten by those with whom he once shared his kill.