March 10, 2008
Can I Just Say
The Spitzer thing is point # 5,296,431 of Exhibit A of the reason I consider myself a Republican with a strong libertarian streak. What madness convinces a Governor of a state (or a Senator) that he can get away with consorting with prostitutes and not get caught? I don’t think it has anything to do with hookers’ reputation for having an unnatural ability for keeping secrets. Or to think its a good idea to flash his Senate badge to a cop and say in effect “do you know who I am?” I mean, its one thing for some anonymous Joe Schmo on the block to think he can get away with this crap, but for some of the most recognizable names in the country? For a guy like Eliot Spitzer, who has more enemies than your average tinpot dictator? And don’t get me started on bureaucrats, who don’t even have to face the threat of an underfunded electoral challenger every few years and are nearly impossible to fire.
No, it has to do with the arrogance that power inevitably brings with it, combined with the dark side that all humans have by reason of their basic evolutionary (or Satan-given if you like, since I’m now on a conservative blog 
) impulse toward self-preservation.
This isn’t about Eliot Spitzer, or David Vitter, or Jim McGreevey, or Rick Renzi, or Larry Craig, or Bill Jefferson (who managed to get re-elected by a huge margin last time) or Rod Blagojevich, or John Doolittle. As Jon Henke at QandO put it:
The fundamental problems in politics are not resolvable by electing “better” people (though that might help at the margins); the fundamental problems in politics are the structural and systemic perverse incentives to pander, bribe and capture more power, and even the best-intentioned politician cannot escape those problems.
These are the people to whom you want to give more and more monopoly power over your lives. You can trust them about as far as you could trust, say, Governor Spitzer and Senator Vitter. If you seek to replace the politicians, rather than to fundamentally change the incentives and limit their power, you’re just not serious about fixing the problems.
Or to put it more succinctly, I can just quote from my favorite chapter title from Hayek’s seminal work: “Why The Worst Get On Top.”
And that’s the exact reason that I don’t want any of these jokers making any decision about what to do with my retirement funds, my health care, or my marriage.
I will also add that while I feel tons of sympathy for his family, as someone whose former firm was on the opposite side of him many times and who saw firsthand the way this guy railroaded people (”Mr. Spitzer, the witness is 80 years old and lives in California.” “I don’t care, get him to New York in three days.”) and preened about morality, ethics, and civic responsibility, I feel about as much sympathy for him as I do for Haggard or Swaggert. Which is to say, not much.
http://race42008.com/2008/03/10/can-i-just-say/trackback/
March 10th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Governor Spitzer should be forgiven for his moral shortcomings, lest
we forget that the same thing could have happened to any of us.
However, one must wonder what kind of a life was led by a man whose great
legislative priority was to increase the number of abortions in his state.
Governor Spitzer campaigned on pledges to “bring ethic reform” and
to clean up “the often seamy ways of Albany.” He was supposed to bring
change to a troubled town, and, instead, became lost in its ways. New
York is in pathetic state, politically, and morally. I am a resident and
would certainly not have voted for Governor Spitzer in
2010 even if he hadn’t been engulfed by this current crisis.
I want a politician to lead our state, not to continue the same old
ways and rhetoric. The New York State GOP was given up for dead after
2006, but now has an incredible chance to turn their fortunes around, now
that the voters have seen what kind of “change” that Democrats bring.
Like Governor Spitzer, Democrats bring corruption, it’s just that they
call it by a different name; “reform.”
March 10th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
If I accept Hayek’s premise, and the Worst wind up on top, all the more reason for conservatives to ensure that our traditional social institutions persevere. These insitutions, like marriage, existed prior to the Supreme Court incorporating the BoR on the states, and prior even to the ratification of the US Constitution, and should not be unwound by a bunch of power-hungry demagogues that will lay waste to our civilization’s heritage in order to pander for a few votes.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
To me there is a difference between forgiveness which is up to his wife, his family and God; and discipline with restitution which is up to his family, the state of NY and the government.
March 10th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
“Governor Spitzer should be forgiven for his moral shortcomings, lest
we forget that the same thing could have happened to any of us.”
Um, no it couldn’t have. You speak of this like it was some random event.
No, the same thing will not happen to me; I don’t involve myself with hookers.
March 11th, 2008 at 6:59 am
“Or my marriage”
Western marriage institutions weren’t some whim that Spitzer or somebody came up with. If anything, I bet Spitzer supported gay marriage or something. The real political innovations have been no-fault divorce and other efforts to weaken the institution. And Haggard and Swaggart weren’t public officials.
March 11th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Face it, those that seek power think they deserve power. They tend to self-rightous and think themselves smarter than the average “Joe”. I don’t care what party it is. I laugh at the comparison of Liberal= Corruption because the GOP has had just as many, if not more, of these moral downfalls. At least Spitzer wasn’t chasing underage pages or wearing a diaper (as far as we know).
It’s the nature of the beast. As far back as Washington politicians have had trouble keeping it in their pants.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:57 am
“All the more reason for conservatives to ensure that our traditional social institutions persevere.”
Indeed. I’m happily married with a kid, and go to church most Sundays. Our social institutions are the true backbone of our society, and a large part of their decline is government deciding to take on the functions that they have performed so well over time.
“Marriage”
The whole gay marriage/no fault divorce/etc stuff is a classic example of the government coopting and corrupting a religious institution. In a perfect world the state would give you a civil union (in essence, your marriage license) and the church would give you a marriage, and never the twain shall meet. But we’ve crossed that bridge long ago. Regardless, government started out trying to “help” or “promote” a religious institution.
“Haggard and Swaggart weren’t public officials.”
Well, they weren’t elected officials, but they were certainly public figures.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I think my wife (while holding up the photo on the front page of this morning’s Daily News) had the best comment on this story:
“Just look at this guy! That hooker was underpaid!”
March 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
The whole gay marriage/no fault divorce/etc stuff is a classic example of the government coopting and corrupting a religious institution. In a perfect world the state would give you a civil union (in essence, your marriage license) and the church would give you a marriage, and never the twain shall meet. But we’ve crossed that bridge long ago. Regardless, government started out trying to “help� or “promote� a religious institution
This is law office history. It bears almost no relation to the real history of marriage in the West. Its true that centuries ago marriage wasn’t a formal, government function (almost nothing was) but in those times marriage laws and marriage laws were enforced by community and by church, both of which had real coercive power. The main difference between now and then is that the state has moved from just enforcing the laws created by church and culture and has started to modify those laws itself and even to perform the ceremonies. Your proposal is actually a step further along that path, since you would have the legal institution of marriage be wholly a creation of government without any involvement of religion and culture at all. If you think government really is that corrupt, you’d favor less government involvement in defining marital-type relationships, not less. Either you’re confused or you hate marriage and want the govt. to ruin it more.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Well, they weren’t elected officials, but they were certainly public figures.
So? They never swore to uphold the laws and they weren’t breaking any either, that I recall. I don’t have much sympathy for either of them. But you seem to be saying that their main fault is that they were moralists. I’d say that their main faults were that they were sleepinga around on their wives. Spitzer’s main fault is that he was sleeping around on his wife, breaking the law, and breaking his oath. That seems more serious to me.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:02 am
“The main difference between now and then is that the state has moved from just enforcing the laws created by church and culture and has started to modify those laws itself and even to perform the ceremonies.”
My point is that this is as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow. Which is why I’d prefer to keep the state as far away from the institution itself (which for me is ultimately a religious one), rather than giving it the power to define the institution and then hope that it doesn’t decide to tinker with it.
Re Swaggert/Haggard/Spitzer et al. It isn’t a question of seriousness. It’s a question of how much sympathy I feel for any of them, which is not much. You can draw distinctions you want, for my purposes the point is that they are all moralizing demogogues who couldn’t live up to the expectations they set for others.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
State involvement is inevitable because of children. The only question is whether we should try to make state involvement compatible with traditional religious and cultural understandings of the institution (my position) , or whether we should exclude those understandings from what the state does (your position).
As far as the moralizing go, it matters a lot that Swaggart and Haggard never threw anybody in jail. It sounds like your real objection is to moralizing per se, which is pretty wrong. Adultery really is bad, for example, and there need to be people teaching that.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Henry,
Your first paragraph comes down to the problem I have. I don’t trust politicians with these matters.
As for moralizing, we’re not really that far about. I think all three are scum. We can debate who is the worse scum (and I’d probably agree with you on who that is) but in the end for me its academic. My problem isn’t with moralizing, its with making a career out of moralizing on an activity and then getting caught doing that exact same type of activity. Kinda like John Edwards and his two Americas schtick, when its pretty clear which America he inhabits.