Topic: Government's Responsibilities
Two Cents on Spitzer Spitzer is officially resigned, effective Monday the 17th. The scandalous behavior beckons an interesting question.by Kishi
(Centrist)
Friday, March 14, 2008
Eliot Spitzer's resignation seems to acknowledge the end of the scandal. He's done. The ethics crusader has been brought down by his own hypocrisy.
What makes this interesting is that, aside from his own bad judgment in this case, he doesn't seem to have been that bad a governor. He didn't do anything that was particularly cumbersome politically. He didn't make the news for making any nation-breaking decisions. Really, the lack of news seems to me to indicate a fairly decent kind of guy all-around.
So when he got busted for the prostitution, it should have been a simple case of open-and-shut. He says he's sorry, resigns, and goes off to whatever luxury cave politicians go to when they die. Only it wasn't. Anybody not living under a rock knows all the sordid details - that he was Client 9, that he may have wired public funds to pay for 'Kristen's services, that he used state troopers for personal escort, and so forth.
This seems to stem from a sense that the governor has somehow breached a moral contract with we the people. We look to our leaders as these moral authorities, and expect them to be shining examples of success and the American Dream. What's interesting is that we couple this with the idea that politicians are scum. And what's really interesting is how we react when the politicians prove us right.
Why do we expect any morality from them at all if we assume they have none at all? The question is self-defeating. There's no point in expecting something when there's nothing there at all to justify it. The real question, I think, is whether or not we have a right to expect moral authority from these people.
I think we do.
In the end, I believe we have the right to expect one thing from them. We have the right to believe that they value their word, and that they will keep it. If we can't operate with even that base faith in them, then why even bother to vote?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2 thumbs so far
2008 Kishi, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, March 14, 2008
Last modified: Friday, March 14, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Kishi only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Kishi is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-03-14 07:13:43
Moral authority: literally, the phrase means "being an expert on the difference between right and wrong." If that's your definition of the term, then yes, I agree.
However, we need much more than that. We need moral voters. We need people willing to vote for what's right rather than what is politically expedient. We need people to vote for the best candidate rather than the likely winner of the horse race. We need voters who are willing to face up to the reality that government, and ex-governors like Eliot Spitzer, can't be trusted to be moral authorities.
Most of all, we need a government that is afraid of the people, rather than a people who are afraid of the government.
I agree with you. I really do. This is a country where we are meant to be governed by people, for people. It's not supposed to be about self-interest at all.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Kishi, all rights reserved.