Spitzer’s Fall and America’s Archaic Laws About Sex …
One thing conspicuously lacking in the recent public discussion about Eliot Spitzer’s political demise, is the draconian nature of many of America’s sex laws. Hélio Schwartsman writes for Brazil’s Folha newspaper, “In various nations including Brazil, the location a politician installs his annex is normally a topic that only concerns himself and those directly involved … The Americans, however, don’t only insist on scrutinizing the private lives of their public men and women, but they also cultivate what is likely the most absurd sexual legislation in the West.” After a bit of a history lesson on the sexual proclivities of Alexander Hamilton, Schwartsman goes on to warn his readers, “be very careful what you do in a motel along the highway in Idaho.”
By Hélio Schwartsman
Translated By Brandi Miller
March 20, 2008
Brazil – Folha – Original Article (Portuguese)
Politics, hypocrisy, sex and power. In a broader sense, all of these words are synonymous. As ex-Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer well-knows, after being forced to resign after being caught up with luxury prostitution ring.
There are two interpretations for Spitzer’s fall. In the first, he succumbed because Americans are a puritanical people who take pleasure in punishing their leaders caught in humanity’s “flagrante delicto [immoral acts].” In the second, his sin was to have been shown a hypocrite: secretly practicing what he condemned in public. The detail here is that the two interpretations are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they reinforce one another. Let’s look at them in greater length.
If there is something that Americans can’t resist, it’s a sex scandal. The first U.S. politician to get caught up in one was Alexander Hamilton (1755 or 1757-1804), who after a complaint was filed against him in 1791, was compelled to admit to his relationship with Maria Reynolds. Both were married – and not to one another, just to be clear. Although he insisted on not having violated any of his public duties, Hamilton had suffered a fatal blow to his career. Shortly afterward, he had to abandon his post as Treasury Secretary. In life, he never again enjoyed the prestige he had before, but – and here comes the first ambiguity – this peccadillo didn’t prevent him from assuming his historic place as a “founding father” of the North American Republic.
[It turned out the Hamilton had paid Maria Reynold's husband, James Reynolds, a total of $1000 over several years in order to continue bedding Maria unimpeded. Rather than challenging Hamilton to a duel - which was the custom, Reynolds decided to blackmail the well-heeled Hamilton instead. Eventually, Reynolds tried to implicate Hamilton in a scheme to bilk Revolutionary War veterans, and rather than get caught up in that, Hamilton spilled the beans of his affair to Congressional inquirers, one of which was future President, James Monroe . Ironically, Hamilton was killed in a duel with Aaron Burr a number of years later].
Hamilton’s was decidedly not an isolated case. The Web site politicker.com has a list of the 53 biggest U.S. sex scandals. Bill Clinton, of course, occupies the number one position after his rumored “affair” with Monica Lewinsky – which almost cost him the presidency. That’s not to mention Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones, his alleged lovers while he was governor of Arkansas. But the list is much broader and touches on representatives of various States and all parties during all eras. It involves heterosexual cases, homosexuals, prostitutes, married women and minors. There’s even a homicide.
A good number of these scandals would be “dispensed with” in other Western countries, which better-separate (or, at least with more clarity) the public sphere from the private sector. In several nations, including Brazil, where a politician installs his annex is normally a topic that only concerns himself and those directly involved. The issue only gains a public dimension if one of the parties complains about the behavior of “said party” (the politician – not the annex) or reveals a correlated fault. Otherwise, officials tend to be left in peace with their lovers, even by the press.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the United States.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “Spitzer’s Fall and America’s Archaic Laws About Sex …”
The conservative community suffers from a strange conflict of intentions to both promote individual freedom from government intervention in private lives while also promoting intervention to stop behaviors the party members do not personally approve of.
The rationale is often protecting families or protecting individuals from abuse. But missionary zeal reaches too far over the line to protect people from themselves. I would be content to see government intervention limited to protecting the victims of predators.
Regardless of what someone's opinion is about prostitution from a moral standpoint, it is unfortuante, even detrimental, that we can't seem to learn anything from past experience, a significant such experience being prohibition..
As for alcohol and tobacco, so for prostituion, it seems only sensible to apply the ''legalize and regulate' rule of thumb. Yet, we constantly go back to square one with each new 'sin' that draws attention and is debated.
I suppose everyone does that, but I am wondering why conservatives ignore their expressed reliance on assessing the cost effectivess of policies when it comes to practices like prostitution. The cost of arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating prostitutes and their clients is enormour, yet it appears to be highly ineffective as a deterrent.
Likewise, I wonder what happened to relying on market forces instead of government intervention.
There is a horrible disconnect here between principles, experience and a pragmatic, common sense approach.
The logic is if the politician would lie and cheat his spouse, he would not think twice about screwing over the electorate.
I do not believe the social conservative want the government snooping around but the do want shame to be a factor in limiting this kind of behavior.
I also find it odd that the left, after preaching unequal power arrangement and vulnerable women needing protection, is now coming out being pro-prostitution. Do you really want poor women deciding between the long term gain of education versus the quick money of prostitution? Also, can anyone concieve of what the OSHA laws would look like for sex workers?
Superdestroyer referred to “vulnerable women needing protection,” and that's preicsely what criminalizing prostitution fails to provide.
Penalizing prostitues will not enhance their opportunities to further their education or to improve their opportunities to gain more savory employment..
Penalizing their customers only drives up the price and attracts the criminal elemnent wanting a share in the profits.
The real concerns (disease, trafficking, etc) can be addressed with regulations or llaws aimed at more narrow correlary practises.
If a connection is to be claimed between sexual fidelity in a marriage and honesty in governance , then some proof, or even mere correlation had better be provided.
How did FDR having a mistress affect his execution of prsidential powers?
And hence, we see the utter contradiction that is modern-day American conservativism—a philosophy which is simultaneously pro-small government and pro-big government. A philosophy which simultaneously argues that the individual knows best how to run his/her own life (with regards to economic matters) and that the government knows best how to run his/her own life (with regards to personal matters).
Not that modern-day American liberalism (i.e. progressivism) is any better.
While we're on the subject of issues in which the government ought not to be interjecting itself into our lives, here's a clip of Congressman Barney Frank making a good argument against anti-internet gambling legislation:
<object width=”425″ height=”355″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/q-UpI1Ct-dg&hl=en”></param><param name=”wmode” value=”transparent”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/q-UpI1Ct-dg&hl=en” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” wmode=”transparent” width=”425″ height=”355″></embed></object>
Sadly, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was passed as part of an amendment to the SAFE Port Act of 2006). The amendment was tacked onto the main bill at the last minute by former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who—interestingly enough—had accepted campaign contributions from Harrah's Entertainment Inc.—a corporation that owns and runs gambling casino's.
And hence, we see the utter contradiction that is modern-day American conservativism—a philosophy which is simultaneously pro-small government and pro-big government. A philosophy which simultaneously argues that the individual knows best how to run his/her own life (with regards to economic matters) and that the government knows best how to run his/her own life (with regards to personal matters).
Not that modern-day American liberalism (i.e. progressivism) is any better.
While we're on the subject of issues in which the government ought not to be interjecting itself into our lives, here's a clip of Congressman Barney Frank making a good argument against anti-internet gambling legislation:
<object width=”425″ height=”355″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/q-UpI1Ct-dg&hl=en”></param><param name=”wmode” value=”transparent”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/q-UpI1Ct-dg&hl=en” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” wmode=”transparent” width=”425″ height=”355″></embed></object>
Sadly, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was passed as part of an amendment to the SAFE Port Act of 2006). The amendment was tacked onto the main bill at the last minute by former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who—interestingly enough—had accepted campaign contributions from Harrah's Entertainment Inc.—a corporation that owns and runs gambling casino's.
Thank you for sharing this information.
Fidelity 401k