He hasn't formally resigned yet but it can't be long before he does. I just watched his speech––businesslike and fidgety. Everyone said there were tears in his eyes but I didn't see them or hear him choke up. He was just his normal robotic self. His wife, standing by his side, was dejected and emotionless. Unlike Eliot, she actually looked like she was having the worst day of her life.
I've been reading the Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo about the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment that demonstrated the awesome power situational forces can have on individual behavior. The book refers specifically to prisoner abuse, but I wonder what the situational forces are that lead politicians to act like they do. Perhaps they could help explain how a Harvard/Princeton educated prosecutor and 'anti-crime' governor could make such a stupid mistake.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I read Spitzer's comments today but
couldn't bring myself to watch a video. For his wife, it's very complicated.. These women are trying to maintain their dignity and keep their family together. Complicated stuff.
Time to watch a Smurf movie.
-sj
Jon, I don't know how familiar you are with Eliot Spitzer's history, but he's just a pretty terrible person overall. His entire career has been driven by the philosophy that rules and constraints don't really apply to him. It's what led him to do things like threaten to indict entire companies to force them to fire executives that he couldn't prove had committed fraud. It's what led him to often subpoena incriminating documents from a company and then leak them to the press. It's what led him to spy on his political rivals in the state legislature during the summer of last year. And it has obviously led him to his current troubles. There's no psychological mystery, just a hypocritical authoritarian who does whatever he wants.
-Mac
PS: If you are interested in a more comprehensive accounting of the things that have made Spitzer infamous, the WSJ online has a pretty good compilation:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120518551881925271.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Obviously the WSJ is not a fan of Spitzer, but even looking at the facts without the editorial comment is pretty alarming.
I don't think you can necessarily equate his behavior as a prosecutor to what he's done. Being an overzealous attorney at least involves a calculation––if you're ever caught, the public isn't going to care (or probably understand the legal details). Nobody's going to chide him for being too tough on big money. But getting involved with a prostitution ring as somebody who's built his entire career on moral rectitude, who's personally prosecuted prostitution rings (he really couldn't imagine they would be wiretapped)––that's reckless hypocrisy without equal. He really didn't learn a thing from the Bruno fiasco.
Jon, while I would understand that such tactics could be used by a prosecutor and not have them be symptomatic of an overall personality defect, I think that at this point its fair to lump them in with everything else he's done. I mean this guy has personally threatened people who's only offense was writing an editorial questioning his policies. I won't deny that his current transgressions required a lot more stupid than some of his previous arrogant moves. However, I'm willing to bet you, say $20, that if Spitzer survives this thing and manages to stay in office, this won't be the last scandal. I just don't think the guy believes that rules actually apply to him.
-Mac
"This is gonna blow up like Eliot Spitzer's career," my chemistry professor quipped. There was a loud bang and shreds of paper fluttering around. I didn't laugh.
Post a Comment