The New Neo

I find it of interest that Representative Weiner may be reluctant to quit his day job because it’s pretty much the only one he’s ever had. Weiner is an example of a modern-day phenomenon I’d call the career politician, the person who’s never done a whole lot more in adult life than run for office and win. It’s not a great trend.

When Weinergate first broke, I looked at Weiner’s Wiki entry for some clue as to why he seemed to have so little awareness of the possible risks he was taking in his sexual escapades online. I had assumed that, like so many politicians, he was a lawyer, or at least had a law degree. I was surprised to discover that at the age of 46 he’d been a politician most of his adult life.

Weiner went directly from college—where he majored in poly sci, natch—to the staff of then-Congressman Chuck Schumer. After a while, at Schumer’s suggestion he went to work in Brooklyn local politics (District Office) and then ran for NY City Council and won. “At 27, he was the youngest person to serve on the Council to that date.”

So Weiner as almost wholly a creature of politics. He had worked at the City Council for seven years when in 1998 Schumer vacated his Congressional seat to run for Senate and Weiner jumped in to replace him. At 34, he was one of the younger (but not the youngest) members of the House, where he has resided ever since.

I had thought that, with his wife’s job as Hillary’s top aide, Weiner could quit because he wouldn’t really need his $174,000 salary—as long as Huma doesn’t leave him, that is. But I was surprised to discover that Huma only made $154,000 in 2009. That’s hardly a bundle in New York City, especially with a baby on the way and an unemployed husband at home with a lot of time on his hands and the ability to make mischief on a computer—although Weiner could always try going on the inspirational speaker circuit, warning of the perils of cybersex addiction.

But enough about Weiner. More than enough. My point is that I’d rather have politicians with life experience in other fields. Weiner’s narrow focus could not have been good either for his work or his psyche. I’ve never been all that big on term limits—I’m enough of a libertarian to believe that voters should be able to make their own choices—but term limits have their distinct advantages, one of which would be to avoid the career politician.

I wrote earlier today that many people are angry at Weiner because they look like fools for having defended him.

In the comments section at Salon, I found a perfect example of the sort of rage I’m talking about. The anger it expresses is based not just on personal embarrassment at having been duped and betrayed by Weiner’s lies, but on the idea that the whole thing undermines future attacks on the nefarious likes of Breitbart, et al:

the little prick [Weiner] :

made brietbart look good

made all the people who defended this pig look bad

and anyone who defends him can no longer speak about the lies bush jr told

all to save his ass from being humiliated by what he had done.

[NOTE: The comment was made in response to this article by Steve Kornacki, which dug up an incident from the beginning of Weiner’s political career, in which he won his first Democratic primary with a campaign against his opponents that Kornacki says appealed to racism. It’s an interesting “now it can be told” story, since Weiner has become damaged goods. It also reminds me—not in the charges of racism, but in the fact that Weiner may have been a ruthless bastard from the start—of another story you don’t hear much about, involving Obama’s political beginnings: his knocking previous mentor Alice Palmer and the other candidates off the ballot in his first Democratic primary.]

[ADDENDUM: And this, of course, was inevitable: the naked truth is out. Personally, I decided not to click on the photolinks there (which I haven’t posted here; my link is to an article about the photos rather than the photos themselves). I like to retain a little mystery; I’ve already had WAY too much information about Weiner². I’ve decide to call it that rather than Weinergate because, let’s face it, it’s about Weiner’s weiner.]

Have you noticed how few Democrats are standing by their man Anthony Weiner? The NY Times has noticed.

Weiner may have calculated, from observing the loyalty most Democrats showed Bill Clinton during his impeachment crisis, that he would likewise retain allies. But in this regard—as in so many others—Weiner may have miscalculated. Being a New York Congressman from the 9th District is not quite the same as being president.

And then there’s the little matter of personal popularity. Weiner may have overestimated his:

Expressions of support from Democrats, many of whom have long grumbled about Mr. Weiner’s chest-thumping, go-it-alone style, were conspicuously scant.

Making others look like fools and dupes for defending you doesn’t usually enhance your standing in their eyes, either. It’s not just Weiner’s wife whom he betrayed; it’s everyone else whom he allowed to stick up for him while he lied through his teeth.

In a delicate irony, some of the angriest may be those who’ve already been there—on the perp side:

One of Mr. Weiner’s most emotional apologies was delivered to former President Bill Clinton, who officiated at his wedding in July and is extremely close with the congressman’s wife, Huma Abedin, an aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Clintons are deeply unhappy about the situation and with Mr. Weiner, people who had been told of their thinking said. Mr. Clinton declined to comment.

And then there’s this video, where Joan Walsh probably speaks for many when she says that in defending Weiner she looks “kind of stupid,” as well as Harry Reid’s tight-lipped refusal to help Weiner.

Weiner might start singing this song sometime soon: