I’ve been struggling to find my voice when it comes to commenting on the recent scandal involving Anthony Weiner, the New York Congressman whose lurid sexual activities are occupying a large swath of national political news these days, because there are too many aspects of this scandal that feels like a story I’ve read countless times before. Maybe that’s part of the problem. This scandal is nothing more than old news. Only the names have changed; and not to protect the innocent.
Anthropologists tell us that people have been known to engage in lurid sexual behavior since the dawn of time, so it shouldn’t come as any surprise that politicians today would be following suit in similar numbers. In fact, a case could be made that politicians are more apt to engage in deviant behavior because their position of power frequently provides the opportunity to do so with less prospect of getting caught. I guess my point is that it’s disingenuous for anybody to suggest that there’s something novel about Congressman Weiner’s behavior. Any serious student of American political history can list U.S. Presidents, from Washington to Clinton, and attach the name of an illicit consort of some form or another. In times long past, that stuff didn’t garner front page headlines on every newspaper in the country like it does today, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It did. It just wasn’t considered newsworthy and seldom hindered a politician from advancing in the political arena.
In my mind, that raises some interesting questions. Why are the salacious details of a politician’s sexual escapades newsworthy today when they were not one hundred fifty years ago? Why do such stories hold the public’s rapt attention? Why do we expect our politicians to adhere to a higher standard of moral conduct than the average citizen, and then respond with contempt when they prove they’re no holier than the rest of us? Who exactly do we want our leaders to be?
People across the political spectrum are calling for Congressman Weiner to resign his position, and it’s hard for me to think he can focus on the work his constituents elected him to do with this lurid cloud hanging over his head. I can understand why certain folks (especially a voter in his district) might want him to pack his bags and leave Washington. Still, I can’t help asking why a guy like Weiner should leave town with his head bowed low when many of his colleagues were just as immersed in immorality as he was? That’s probably where the big disconnect occurs. Many of them don’t see their behavior as immoral, and if they do, they tend to view their misdeeds as not as low as Weiner’s.
For example, the drive to end government financial assistance to the poor is a political cause in vogue today, and many a politician is garnering accolades and voter support for advocating what is, in essence, an attempt to starve a significant number of children who comprise the majority of America’s poor. Ironically, that’s not considered immoral behavior and few voices are calling for those politicians to resign. By contrast, a man who sent a bunch of lewd photographs is labeled a pervert and characterized as wholly unsuitable for public office because of his immoral behavior. No wonder it’s a perplexing subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment