Eliot Spitzer Sex Scandal: A Public And A Private Betrayal

It is not just a "private matter" at all! Contrary to the assertions in his brief statement shortly after The New York Times broke the scandal of his involvement in a high-priced prostitution ring, New York state governor Eliot Spitzer's actions affect all of us as public citizens. Indeed, his dealings with the Emperor’s Club V.I.P escort service, over several years it would seem, constitute not just a reprehensible betrayal of the private trust endowed him by virtue of the marriage vows he made to his wife, Silda. They also represent a flagrant and spectacular breach of the public trust conferred upon him by the electorate. Mr. Spitzer acknowledged that he "acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family." "I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself," he said. "I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family." Mr. Spitzer apologized to his family and the people of New York to whom he had promised better, and claimed to accept full responsibility for "actions," upon which he was clearly not ready to elaborate. He reaffirmed his commitment to his constituents, and then suggested that the controversy surrounding him was a private matter having nothing to do with his public life. "I do not believe that politics, in the long run, is about individuals," Mr. Spitzer declared. "It is about ideas, the public good, and doing what is good for the state of New York."

But how can that be? Ultimately, it is individuals that have the task of executing ideas that are destined for the public good. And Mr. Spitzer has been caught in a pernicious lie that has exposed him as one of the worst kinds of self-righteous hypocrites we could have as a public official, especially considering the fact that, as state attorney general in 2004, he had oversight of a strategic task force that vigorously pursued and busted several prostitution rings, including one that involved the arrest of 18 people on Staten Island. Personal conduct — in public, or otherwise — is the true hallmark of one’s character, and it cannot be overlooked in persons presenting themselves for public office. The truth of the matter is that public policy typically intersects with questions of morality. Therefore, it cannot be unreasonable for us to look with serious scrutiny on the character of our political representatives — potential, or standing — to see whether they are capable of maintaining the utmost integrity, or are conducting themselves in a manner worthy of emulation while serving our best interests. Joseph C. Phillips posed and definitively answered this very question recently in his article entitled, Should a Candidate's Private Indiscretions Matter as He Seeks the Public Trust? Absolutely. Mr. Phillips writes:

In America, we do not anoint royalty infallible, but public servants, with “servants” being the operative word. Our elected officials serve at the pleasure of the people. We rightly expect that those entrusted with the nation’s security and purse strings will exercise their obligations with prudence and clarity. It is not scandal mongering that sparks our interest in the private lives of public servants, but the fact that public indiscretion calls into question one’s decision making skills. Or at least it should. Trust is essential to public service. In truth, though, if a man would break a sacred vow he makes to the mother of his children, why should we believe for one moment that he holds the promises he made to nameless faceless citizens in any higher esteem? I struggle with the idea that any man bent on fulfilling his own personal desires, even at the expense of the best interests of his children, can be trusted to oversee the interests of the general public.

Inasmuch as we could continue to rant and pontificate on the political ramifications and fallout that this travesty has created, the sad reality is that this kind of outrage has become something of a cliché in our cultural landscape. By now, many of the more publicized escapades have become embedded in political lore, from President Bill Clinton's encounters with Monica Lewinsky to Sen. Bob Packwood and his unwanted advances on women, to Rep. Mark Foley and his lewd e-mails to male Congressional pages. Moreover, the sexual missteps among politicians are not peculiar to the United States, having firm grounding in England, for instance, and turning up with good regularity throughout the world. Regardless, things seem to have escalated to more absurd proportions in this country. Indeed, it has become the norm to watch at some news conference a disgraced male public official rendered politically emasculate by the sheer embarrassment of some newly unearthed sexual indiscretion, while his humiliated yet officially supportive wife stands quietly at his side, struggling to put a public face on the conflicted emotions that surely must be churning beneath the outwardly calm exterior. Is the wife really always the last to know? And what's up with making the wife a public spectacle, anyway? In Spitzer, Stop Torturing The Wife, Maggie Gallagher writes:

But can we at least end this barbaric practice of dragging your wife before the cameras while you confess your shameful guilt? If she wasn't there in the hotel room when you did your crime, don't ask her to do your time. The practice began relatively innocently as something an accused man might do when he denied the allegations . A man's wife at his side showed that she, at least, believed the guy when he said he did not do it. It was former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, I believe, who began the modern practice (Can we ban it along with waterboarding?) of parading the little wife before the cameras to hold your hand as you confess your guilt. The goal is to get the shell-shocked wife to demonstrate to the public that the offense is forgiveable. If his wife forgives him, how mad can you be?

We believe it was Bill McCartney, founder of the Promise Keepers organization and former head coach of the University of Colorado national championship football team, who once heard a visiting preacher say that the real mark of a man's character — and the depth of his walk with God — is generally reflected in the countenance of his wife's face. And, to be sure, there can be no question regarding the piteous and broken demeanor reflected on Silda Wall Spitzer's face as she stood bravely, despite shame and humiliation, at her husband's side at his news conference Monday. Her face spoke volumes. And our hearts went out to her. Therefore, we shall leave the Monday-morning quarterbacking on Mr. Spitzer's political prospects to the pundits that have followed his career more closely and turn our focus to the “political wife" (in fact, any wife) whose life is typically left in shambles by these kinds of public revelations of betrayal.

In that regard, here's the burning question that enquiring minds typically want to know: Why do so many wives of these political miscreants stand by their man, especially after such flagrant infidelity comes to light? Indeed, why not skip the news conference and file for D-I-V-O-R-C-E, some ask. Well, for one thing, it is clear that many of them like Dina Matos-McGreevy — the, now, ex-wife of former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevy, who was publicly outed for a homosexual affair with a subordinate state employee — are bullied into attending these conferences to present a show of solidarity. But, for another, and to their eternal credit, these political wives must also have a deep sacrificial sense of trying to keep everything together for the sake of the family unit and any children that may be affected by the scandal. In the Spitzer scenario, there are three teenage daughters that are certain to be deeply affected emotionally by the revelations about their father. And, for a third, good is typically never served through hasty decisions.

To err is human, but to forgive divine, some may also say. However, it is important for us to acknowledge that forgiveness does not mean staying in a marriage in which there has been repeated unrepentant behavior, or the vows of fidelity continually violated. Forgiveness also does not mean absolving an offending spouse from the consequences of his or her behavior, which, ultimately, could teach wisdom. And, to be sure, forgiveness does not mean leaving oneself in harm’s way, which, as in the Spitzer scenario, would include leaving oneself exposed to the great risks associated with unprotected sexual activity, which was seemingly Mr. Spitzer's preference with his trollops.

What is a private matter is the question of whether the Spitzer’s marriage will survive the present scandal. And, indeed, it could, as Bill and Hillary Clinton have so far demonstrated. Perhaps, there is too much vested financially and emotionally to just walk away. Regardless, the quality of the marriage, or the divorce, that could emerge from this kind of emotional rubble is dependent solely on the quality of work, courage, and commitment that both spouses are prepared to invest in repairing the extensive, multifaceted damage created by this kind of implosion. There are no easy fixes here; no band-aids that will ease the pain, and no divorce that will fix the issues... on both sides.

Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain, a famous proverb declares. And, in the long run, the collapse of the Spitzer's marriage could be viewed as an opportunity, a turning point if you will, to rebuild a new marriage based on more meaningful spiritual principles and values. What were the foundational elements missing from their current relationship? Clearly, truth. And honor. But what, also, about love? The true love that never falters. And what about commitment? And forgiveness? And God? To be sure, we can determine to walk away from such life opportunities and what we have accomplished for better, or for worse. Or, we can swallow our pride and determine to do the work, all the while remembering that pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. All of which might be just too much for Mr. Spitzer, especially, to grasp in this now moment, since it was his own imperial mien, after all, that has made this fall from grace particularly bruising.


EDITOR'S NOTE (03-12-08): Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned on Wednesday, March 12, 2008, becoming the first New York governor to leave office amid scandal in nearly a century. He said he wanted to turn his attention to healing his family. We pray for them God's eternal grace.

We also want to bring your attention to the article below by Dina Matos-McGreevy. Like Silda Wall Spitzer, she also endured public humiliation when her husband, former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevy, was ousted from public office in disgrace:

RELATED ARTICLE: Stand by Yourself New York Times, By Dina Matos-McGreevy, March 12, 2008