Anthony Weiner, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and the Circus
Some of the reaction to the Weiner scandal is vaguely reminiscent of the reaction in France to the DSK scandal, though far less overtly disturbing. While the French had a “how dare they?” reaction to DSK’s arrest and perp-walk, and while many in France remain in denial that the top French socialist could possibly have attempted to rape a maid (and how can we believe the story of a maid!?) American commentators are taking a slightly approach. We should ignore these stupid sex scandals, we have better things to do, how ridiculous that we’re still talking about this, oh the sensational press, etc. etc. etc.
But do we really have better things to do? This piece in The Economist paints the European political elite as a sort-of aristocracy, with the media all but silent on their sexual misdeeds:
European tolerance of cavorting politicians carries the risk of creating a culture of silence and immunity that too easily blurs the lines between a consensual affair, harassment and outright assault. Henry Kissinger may have thought that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. But power can also be a means of extorting sexual and other favours. If state and media conspire to keep quiet about the debauchery of politicians, might it not be easier to hide other misdeeds, such as corruption?
And Gene Healy makes an excellent point:
H.L. Mencken thought government as practiced in these United States was “dishonest, insane, and intolerable.” But that never stopped the sage of Baltimore from enjoying what he called “incomparably the greatest show on earth.”
In Mencken’s version of American exceptionalism, this great nation had elevated politics to “the plane of undiluted comedy” because “we have clowns in constant practice among us who are as far above the clowns of any other great state as a Jack Dempsey is above a paralytic.”
So have a guilt-free laugh about Weinergate. Not only are political sex scandals great fun, they serve an important social purpose. They remind us that we should think twice before we cede more power to these clowns.
Whether we cede them too much power or not, or whether they are accused merely of sending lewd photographs or of outright sexual harassment or assault, the media’s job is to report the circus act as it happens. I won’t say “keep the politicians honest” because some tasks are simply impossible. But at the very least we should keep their dishonesty on record, because their lies have far greater reach than the lies of simple plebes like you and me. Their lies hurtle nations into wars or economies into the incinerator. Puritanism has nothing to do with it. I’ll take a sex scandal over a culture of hush-ups any day of the week.
If these people are going to vote in legislation that defines moral behavior, then their own behavior needs to be extensively explored.
In particular, if they think that ubiquitous surveillance is a good idea, then they ought to be willing to live in that world.Report
Good point.Report
I have tried several times to log in at forbes and have had no success. I am just an old carpenter with few computor skills and will not try forbes again. I must admit that I find a great deal of humor in the palin replies and admire your restraint. I write this now to let you know that I hope papabuddy comes here and dumps on the unremarkedly pedestrian blaise or jaybird.Report
I don’t get an adjective?Report
sorry. poor writing skills. I meant for the adjectives to refer to both of you.Report
Weiner voted against reauthorizing the Patriot Act.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=16366225&category=views&id=20100506102832Report
If I have a problem, it’s that scandals that are difficult to understand tend to get ignored. Let’s say that there was a conflict of interest when it came to a bill dealing with lobbying where X hires Y’s nephew, Y hires Z’s brother, and Z hires X’s spouse (or, heck, make there be 35 players with all kinds of criss-cross hiring).
You need to make a chart to understand the web of nepotism by proxy and the conflicts of interest papered over by such a practice. Several charts, probably.
A guy taking a picture of his junk? Ah, now *THAT* requires no charts, no footnotes, and no “by proxy” stuff. It’s junk.
And so we’re talking about junk rather than talking about stuff that’s difficult to understand.
Which is not to say that we ought *NOT* talk about junk. Of course we should! It’s a legit scandal! It’s just that there are leeches just as engorged with blood out there that deserve equal time even in they aren’t as sexy.Report
I’ll take a sex scandal over a culture of hush-ups any day of the week.
The real problem, though, is the world we live in today (or at least used to) wherein the NY Times sits on a story about wire-tapping for *years* and we get sex scandals.Report
And we both made this comment at the same time apparently, but you did so with less words.Report
Of course, there is no reason to believe that a press that focused *less* on sex scandals would focus more on wire-tapping, etc. In fact, it’s quite possible they would simply focus less on politicians altogether.Report
Yes. Well, this all goes back to the consolidation of media in this country; but that’s another post, I suppose…Report
“Their lies hurtle nations into wars or economies into the incinerator… I’ll take a sex scandal over a culture of hush-ups any day of the week.”
Right, but that’s the point- they don’t make a big deal about all lies, and especially not the ones that couldn’t be explained to a child- when government officials lie and it screws up the economy or leads to war, 99% of the media collectively moans “booooooorring” and waits for another juicy sex scandal to report on. So, yes, reporting on sex scandals might be better than a “culture of hush ups” (although I can tell you that most of the French I know would be displeased to see BHL taken as equivalent with “the French”), but here’s a better deal: they can act like some idiot emailing a picture of his goomagachie to a woman is really super important if the next time that Congress casually votes to ratchet up the Patriot Act one notch more, they also act like that’s really super important.Report
But lots of history starts with the Wrinkly Bits. It may be the Last Turkey in the Shop, but it’s the first part of me through the Door to Temptation. It was the first part of Henry Tudor through that door, leading to a few nasty European wars.
Power, especially political power in all its forms attracts a certain sort of person and there’s no denying its sexual nature. I remember a discussion years ago with a Frenchman and his wife about Clinton’s penis problems.
Mitterand had just died in 1996 and his mistress Anne Pingeot (with whom he’d had a daughter, Mazarine) attended the funeral alongside his wife Danielle. Très français..
The wife observed, and her husband concurred, Clinton was a beast, not because he had an affair, but because he did not love Monica Lewinsky. Not once had he actually spent a whole night with her. Monica complained to Linda Tripp because she knew she was being used. Whatever she might have felt for Bill Clinton, the sense of being desired by a powerful man, she knew her feelings would never be returned. Clinton’s other affairs were similarly abuses of power-based relationships.
Sexual scandals are important, not because they have any impact on the PATRIOT Act, but because they show our leaders as human beings, usually wretchedly self-obsessed people, abusers of their position. If they put up a sign in the Rose Garden reading “The line for presidential blowjobs starts here” you may be assured most of the lobbyists in Washington would be forming up, with Barney Frank grinning, right at the head of the line. And we might tolerate it as a nation: we tolerate a great many other indiscretions and prostitutions of high position for favors of one sort and another.
Clinton got in trouble, not because he had his affair, but because he lied about it. And let’s not forget he survived the scandal. Gerry Studds’ political career survived a scandal with a house page. Barney Frank’s boyfriend was a prostitute. America’s not as upset as it used to be about dead girls and live boys in people’s beds. We love these stories because they reduce these pompous and powerful asses to livid caricatures of themselves. It’s funny. Molière says comedy corrects men’s vices and nobody should be exempt.Report
I don’t understand — why would Barney Frank be at the front of the line?Report
I am told by a gay man of my acquaintance Barney Frank is the most genially amoral man in Washington and has never seen a penis he didn’t like.Report
In fact, that whole trope about the sign in the Rose Garden, including Barney Frank at the head of the line, is copped from that conversation with the guy in #12.Report
Okay, fair enough. I do agree that, in the right hands, a sex scandal can be a useful window on the soul of a scoundrel. I just wish non-sexual but equally scoudrelly acts were treated with the same level of mockery, disdain, and condemnation.Report
From your mouth to God’s ear. Still, there’s nothing as funny as a good erotic joke, especially one involving a politician’s willie.Report
Aren’t you putting too much blame on the media’s doorstep for this discrepancy, and not enough on ours? I’m pretty sure if we as a group of viewers/listeners/readers wanted to focus on the Patriot Act the media would be happy to oblige.
In fact, can’t you make an argument that the focus on famous people sending pics of dicks and little on the Patriot Act a triumph of the marketplace?
If I were Jaybird I would be writing something about this in a “we all want the freedom of the market to rule except when we don’t” line, only it would be more pithy and clever.Report
The market is, in fact, covering everything. The Internet is doing one heluva job when it comes to opinion journalism and even hard news.
Once upon a time, you had the big three at 6PM and your morning paper and that is what you knew about the world.
If pinko Kronkite didn’t talk about it, and if the Herald Tribune didn’t talk about it, you didn’t know about it.
Now? The gatekeepers can’t keep the flood back. The problem comes that things that are difficult to understand are difficult to understand and things that are childishly easy to understand are childishly easy to understand.
Anybody can understand and argue about the latter. We (as opinion journalists) need to do a better job with the former.
I’ll try to come up with a one-liner.Report
Oddly enough, I think this might have been my point. Having pinko media overlords did mean that we were given a pretty entrenched coverage of Watergate, for example. I find it hard to believe that the same story today wouldn’t be essentially abandoned after half a week or so in the news cycle. I mean, a blog here or there would certainly carry on the fight, but hardly anyone would listen or care.
A guy sexting, or boinking his page, or a sexpot widow dying of a drug overdose though… pure ratings gold. We can’t get enough.
Not advocating one way over the other, just making the observation.Report
I would say all that, but I’m not someone who cares too much if the freedom of the market rules or not. Should the news media be a ratings-driven money generator? Well, sure, Americans generally say “Yes!” Especially if it keeps it from being state media like Pravda or the CBC (which I still check every few days and don’t feel my freedom slipping away). Me? Eh, it wouldn’t upset my ideology one way or the other were the news media something different than what it is in the US.Report
As for your question about whether the public is dumbing down the media instead of the reverse, it’s very possible. But, I think if I ran a media company, I might expend a bit more resources trying to appeal to a wider array of the public and therefore capture the largest share of the market, instead of what they seem to be doing, which is figuring out which group spends the most and throwing all of their resources at them. For instance, if I owned a film studio, I don’t think I’d be putting out 80 films a year for young men in the 15-35 demographic and two for anyone else. I mean, clearly, I’m not in the business, but my problems with these companies tend to be that I think their long-term business models stink.Report
I was going to write something before about the confluence of Newt Gingrich, DSK, and Cornel West. In addition to those, I think we can now add Anthony Weiner and Sarah Palin.
This latest episode is like a bipartisan summer vacation. We’ll quit talking about Medicare and deficits for a week or two and entertain ourselves with mindless trivia before we have to return to regularly scheduled programming.
That aside, the story for me is pretty clear. It is our republican constitution that lets us laugh at such people. They either want to force us to be involved in their little dramas or force us to perceive them in a particular serious way. Luckily, because we’re still a republic we can laugh at them if we want to, and for the most part we do.
Therefore it is worthwhile to remember that our republic is worth keeping for that reason if nothing else.Report
Ah, yes. Those brave souls who died on the Beaches of Normandy, the hillsides of Pennsylvania and the jungles of Korea: fighting for dick-pics, one and all.Report
If that’s the way you’re taking it, I must not have been very clear.Report
Tony’s an idiot with Tiger Woods Syndrome. Guy’s got an attractive wife and he still plays around on the side.
This so noted, there are significant difference between Tony and DSK.
1. DSK allegedly had actual physical contact with the housekeeper in question; Tony never touched any of the women in his sordid tale.
2. More importantly, DSK allegedly had non-consensual sex with the housekeeper; Tony reportedly had consensual activities with various females.
3. DSK’s allegedly committed felonious criminal acts; Tony simply acted like an idiot – but, as far as we know, broke no laws. (Congressional ethics is a separate issue.)
Still, and I’ll repeat this for a third time, Tony’s an idiot who lied to his constituents. His wife will handle the former. One has to wonder if his constituents can now believe Tony’s stance on any issue.Report
I know I said this before and it’s really a minor point, but I’m reading a lot of blogs talking about what “the French” are saying about this DSK scandal and how they’re responding to it. And let me say that what they, and you, are saying coincides with what some French people are saying. But it’s much more multifaceted than that. Honestly, I’ve never felt comfortable talking about French culture as a whole, and I still don’t now. But I will say that my limited window of information- being in regular contact with a handful of friends in France and reading a few of the daily papers online- doesn’t really gibe with what you’re talking about in that first paragraph. It sort of describes Bernard-Henri Lévy’s opinion piece, and I think the Economist makes an important point about more traditional French cultural norms, which are changing, incidentally. But, a lot of the American blogs I’m reading sound like they’re under the belief that Pepé Le Pew is a real dude.Report