Why Did Spitzer Resign? Notes on 'Public' and 'Private' in Civic Life

As soon as the sexual escapades of New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer as high rolling “Client #9” and New York City call-girl “Kristen” were disclosed to the public, just about everyone assumed the governor would have to resign.

After all, who’d put up with a governor who spends close to $5,000 on a hooker in Washington, D.C.’s Mayflower Hotel, on Valentine’s Day eve? Sure enough, within 48 hours, he announced his departure from office.

The question is: “Why?”

Clearly, Governor Spitzer faces a number of allegations from a variety of constituencies concerned with various violations in multiple venues.
First, participating in prostitution is a crime-- for both the prostitute and her/his client. So is paying for such services by the unlawful transfer of funds. So, there is a criminal dimension to Spitzer’s misconduct. He was breaking the law, and people say we can’t have a governor who breaks the laws he has pledged to uphold.

More seriously, there’s the hypocritical aspect of his conduct. He’s been subjected to accusations of a profound lack of integrity—or, plain old bad faith. Throughout his career in government, as prosecutor, attorney general, and governor, Spitzer crusaded against all sorts of corruption. He’s best known for pursuing scoundrels, like Wall Street brokers who bilked their clients, and more recently, for drawing attention to lenders who exploited families through the ‘sub-prime mortgage’ sham. We think back to Spitzer’s inaugural address (read it here) given just 14 short months ago, when he took on all of government itself and solemnly pledged to “transform our government so that it is as ethical and wise as all of New York.”

His conduct as Client #9, people say, broke his promise to the people of New York. We agree. We can’t have a governor who lacks integrity and who has lost his credibility.

Finally, and most seriously in the public’s perceptions, Spitzer’s conduct represents a profound personal moral failing. If he did engage in sleazy sex, as it appears, then he’s in trouble on moral grounds. In having extra-marital sex (with a prostitute, no less) he has broken the bonds of his marriage and emotionally victimized his own family-- his three teenage daughters and his wife.

While his wife has literally stood by his side in his public appearances after the story broke, it is assumed his actions violated the terms of their marriage-- that he violated the sacred trust at the very heart of family. In short, he was a rat who was cheating on his family, and people say we can’t have a leader who cheats on his family.

But it’s interesting to not that these calls for Spitzer’s resignation were all based on charges of misconduct while governor, but not as governor. He wasn’t accused (at least as of this posting) of misusing any public money or a New York State airplane for ‘private,’ sexual purposes. Folks are concerned with his private behavior and are finding implications for his public standing. His private life is seen as somehow compromising his ability to govern.

Curiously, in President Bill Clinton, we saw a high ranking public official who cheated on his wife with a White House employee, and lied about it to the American people, to the judicial system, and to his own wife and family. He survived office, and his wife is now herself running for president. How were Clinton and Spitzer different? Apparently, President Clinton had enough political support to override his personal shortcomings. Or, people knew they were getting a morally flawed individual when they voted for him and therefore didn’t feel misled when he continued to give in to those desires while in office. Either way, some of the same people calling for Spitzer’s resignation now were rooting for Clinton to ‘hang in there’ then.

This discussion of Spitzer, and the claims that his private conduct should lead to his resignation from public office, re-visits the dichotomies embedded in our discourse about government, politics, and civic life: public vs. private; political vs. personal; policy vs. character; image vs. reality, and so on. In other words, what does it mean to be a public leader? Do we have higher standards for elected officials only in their public actions, or do we expect more from their private selves as well? Do they even retain a ‘private’ self or are they, by virtue of their post, in the public domain?

We often hear people say that it is right and legitimate to divide the ‘public’ and ‘private’ spheres of public officials and that we ought to keep them separate. At the local and the national level, people are quick to say ‘personal attacks’ against public officials are out of line. While attacks on the voting record or the position of an official on an issue are often misconstrued as personal attacks, in general, the taboo on personal attacks— i.e., criticism of the private conduct, or the personal behavior of the person is often said to have no bearing on public governance. Yet, the Spitzer resignation has now given supporters of that position great pause.

While No Strings Geneva is widely read and highly regarded as a fact-based point of view on local government, a handful of City Councilors and some editorial staff of the local newspaper say we ‘cross the line’ in holding public officials accountable for all aspects of their public life.
For example, even though she never gave any evidence or cited any particulars, Editor Anne Schuhle cautioned candidates in last fall’s local election against affiliating themselves with this blog, lest they be seen as lacking in ‘integrity.’ Her editorial board endorsements readily dismissed ‘private’ failings of ‘public’ officials, as though private conduct didn’t matter at all. But are those same people now telling the media, elected officials, and general public to back off and not criticize Spitzer’s ‘private life’? No. In fact, the Finger Lakes Times has used a lot of ink in reporting on the scandal and calling for Spitzer to leave office, quickly.

Are they wrong to do so now, or were they wrong before? Should public officials be subject to public scrutiny about their conduct, or should they not? Does public office carry a higher expectation or doesn’t it? These seem to be ongoing questions.

For now, we can say that the Spitzer resignation has revealed general support for the idea of the ultimate indivisibility of the ‘public’ and the ‘private’ actions of public officials. A commitment to open, honest, and transparent government (the fundamental conditions for accountability) also means a commitment to open, honest government officials. We cannot imagine giving a thumbs up to a governor who, in private, doesn’t practice what, in public, he preaches.