Okay, let’s see a show of hands. Who takes politics seriously?
Really. Who thinks that the decisions made in Congress, and the balance of power in the Congress, are important?
Apparently not the Congressional Democrats, and you know how we can tell? Just look at what they’re doing to Anthony Weiner.
Sure, he’s got himself in a bit of trouble by his ridiculous and outrageous behavior, but the question is what should he, and what should the Congress, do about it?
The answer is clear: he should refuse to resign, stay in office, and keep fighting.
Matt Yglesias pointed out almost a month ago, before the Weiner story broke (I know, how do you ignore the punning potential?), that the way to win these sex scandals is to refuse to resign. If you don’t resign, barring some significant illegality, you have a good chance of surviving. If you do resign, obviously, you’re all done.
Look at admitted criminal David Vitter. When he was caught up in a prostitution ring he admitted that he had patronized prostitutes. He didn’t admit what later came out, which was that apparently his kink had to do with prostitutes forcing him to wear diapers.
Where is he sitting now? In the United States Senate.
Did you hear any of his Republican colleagues calling on him to reisgn? Of course not, because they know that they’d rather have a criminal who consorts with prostitutes in their caucus than risk the chance of losing his seat to a Democrat.
In Weiner’s case, while his activities may have been distasteful, creepy, or somewhat irresponsible, he did nothing against the law. His sexting interlocutors were adults, and apparently consenting. What’s more, his constituents, who you would think have a legitimate interest in who represents them, want him to stay.
Elections have consequences, what is going on in Congress is a fight for the future of the country, and Anthony is an effective fighter for progressive causes. We can’t afford to lose him.
Why isn’t this obvious to Congressional Democrats?
Harry Truman is credited with saying: “My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there’s hardly any difference!” Jack, you are proving Harry right!
he’s still ‘an effective fighter for progressive causes?’
it’s unclear to me. that’s the shame of it.
First of all. I don’t thing the Republicans and Vitter should be our moral standards. By that rationale, we can do no wrong, ever. Bringing in the “well, look at what THEY did…” has never worked for me, and I don’t think it’s a logically or ethically supportable approach to these things, when you step back.
Second, there’s a genuine question as to whether or not, given the scandal, that he will ever again be an “effective fighter for progressive causes.” I rather doubt it. His effectiveness has largely shriveled up for the forseeable future.
Finally, there’s the question of what he actually did. My understanding is that these pics were sent to women unsolicited, at least in some cases (and I’m not talking about the cases where the pictures were welcomed by the recipient). If that is the case, and he just shoved a lewd picture of himself in some hot young thing’s face that she didn’t want or ask for. Seriously, that’s about a hundred times worse than Clarence Thomas talking about pubic hairs on his coffee mug. In that case, there was a clear employer-employee type power dynamic which defined it as sexual harassment – but the act of arrogant disregard for women and the abject disrespect inherent in the assumption that he has the right to do something like that is still there.
Does that matter? I guarantee it does if you’re a woman, so it should to us men as well. Does the totality of the above matter enough that he should resign?
I’m not sure, but the answer is anything but “obvious.”
But probally something he could have eventually been forgiven for if he said enough mea culpas . It was the subsequent lying and feeble cover-up that is likely unforgivable.
Best,
Ed
but don’t be surprised if freaks show up to work it. I just wrote a post about this. We should step back and look at the system we have created to select these people. It is a honey trap for people with emotional problems.
We’re kind of lucky in Vermont. Our state is small enough that the big money and the big political carnival pass us by. As a result we have Pat, Peter, and Bernie. Love them or hate them, but they seem like straight arrows.
Not so the rest of the country, where candidates posture and bombast their way through a wretched gauntlet of money grovelling, posing, triangulating, and press pandering. And we wonder why we get narcissists, liars, and perverts.
Our consolation about the possible loss of Anthony Weiner is that his constituents will most likely elect someone with political views close to his.
Yes, I’d like all elected representatives to be paragons of virtue. That said, a few tacky emails don’t even register on my appall-o-meter compared to the shredding of the constitution, corporate feudalism, bombing, torturing, and the like.
This is a matter of maturity, judgment and character. Jack, you’ve made it clear that for you, these are trivial issues in our politicians as long as they are on the right side of the ideological fence. There are those of us however who believe that character does matter and this kind of behaviour is showing a lack of maturity and judgment unbecoming of a US Congressman. Condone it if you want Jack but don’t chastise Congress for not doing the same as this type of behaviour does neither the party or the nation any good.