It's Not Just About Ethics.

As anyone who has not been in a coma the last few days is aware, Rep. Anthony Wiener has gotten himself into trouble. After a week of steadfast denial and claims of being the victim of a plot to discredit him, Wiener admitted that he had sent lewd pictures of himself to a woman he met on face book as well as engaged in "several inappropriate conversations" on Twitter. He also admitted to engaging in "intimate sexual banter" with women on the Internet and over the phone. He stated that he did not know what he was thinking when he did so. I am not a psychic and I have never met Weiner but I will venture he knew exactly what he was thinking when conversing with the women he met. What he was not thinking about is that he is a married U.S. congressman and that the chances of him keeping his actions a secret were slim at best. Wiener did not avail himself of one of the discreet high class services that cater to the powerful and famous in Washington. He did not even seduce a staffer. He conducted himself like a hormone fueled teenager and engaged in sexual "banter" and sent lewd pictures of himself to a woman he met on face book.

Weiner's conduct is not simply a matter of ethics. It is a matter of self discipline, character and judgement as well. For a man in Weiner's position, with his tastes and predilections, self discipline is vital. But he did not even have the self discipline to do what it takes to keep his sexual inclinations off the Internet.

Despite whatever excuses Wiener might give for his actions, he did not yield to a temptation. His action was not an aberration as he claimed. He admitted he had engaged in sexual chat with others he had met on line. His action was part of a pattern of behavior. You do not just wake up one morning and decide you want to engage in sexual chat on line and send provocative pictures of yourself to people you meet on face book. Such desires are the product of cultivation and indulgence. Wiener's actions reflect a preoccupation and a weakness of character, not a simple lapse of judgment. Even if he claims, as he inevitably will, that he is suffering from some disorder or another that would change nothing. His conduct was beyond the pale. A letter from his therapist saying he is cured would do nothing to erase the stain he left on Congress.

Wiener's culpability extends far beyond the simple act of emailing lewd pictures of himself to a woman he met on line. Weiner may not have broken any laws but he exercised the poorest of judgement and demonstrated the weakest of characters not simply by committing the actions he did, but by lying about them afterwards. Like so many before him, Weiner decided that when all else fails, tell the truth and throw yourself on the mercy of the public. That might be an effective tactic in Hollywood where character and judgment are are not required to do one's job. But Washington is a different matter. The U.S. Congress is one place where character, self discipline, and judgement are essential: at least it should be.

It would be unfortunate if the lesson drawn from Wiener's downfall is the need for more discretion on the part of politicians in their sexual dalliances. Perhaps the next time character comes up as an issue in an election people should pay closer attention rather than shrugging it off as somehow irrelevant. Wiener lied to the public. He lied to his wife. We call people who lie liars. Why should we trust him if he says he has learned his lesson? Why should we trust any politician who, after being caught in a lie, says he has learned his lesson? Politicians of weak judgement and character cannot be relied upon and, in their efforts to hide their shortcomings, are more often a risk to their constituents than an asset.

It is commonly asserted that how a person conducts himself in private is of no concern to the public. It is asked what business is it of ours if a person is engaged in adultery, frequents prostitutes, or indulges in on line porn out of the public eye? The same question can be asked regarding other moral shortcomings. What business is it of ours if a person lies or exhibits cowardice in private? Does it really matter if a man is covetous, vain, or cheats at cards behind closed doors? The answer is it depends. If the person in question is a U.S. congressman the answer is yes. Vice is vice whether it is manifested in public or private. Immorality and weak character may be hidden or restrained in public but if they are privately indulged they will only become more entrenched. When coupled with a weak will, vice can exceed restraint. Wiener's inability to stop himself from acting recklessly out of his desires is a case in point. Wiener's job is to legislate on behalf his constituents. His constituents should very much care about his character.

If we want to be rid of lurid scandals and unethical behavior in Washington we should either abandon moral and ethical standards altogether or more diligently take the measure the of the politicians we elect. Either way we will wind up with politicians who have nothing to hide. Wiener's actions were not the result of lax ethics or inadequate rules. Neither were they the product of a bad decision. They were the result of questionable character and poor judgement. That is why Wiener is unfit to serve in Congress.

Who Cares About New Hampshire?

In an editorial this morning David Leonhardt, a columnist for the New York Times, makes a complaint about the nation's primary system that has frequently been made before, and will frequently be made again. Leonhardt criticizes a primary system that begins in two of the least populated and representative states in the U.S., New Hampshire and Iowa. Leonhardt, and many others, argue that New Hampshire's and Iowa's place at the front of the line distorts presidential elections by compelling candidates to appeal to an almost exclusively middle class and rural population, i.e. an electorate unrepresentative of the U.S. at large. They are on the average older, more likely to have health insurance, slower to reproduce, and perhaps worst of all, whiter than the nation at large.

What is important to voters in New Hampshire and Iowa is understood by Leonhardt and others to be peculiar to the narrow demographics that make up those two states. When presidential aspirants appeal to the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire they stake out positions and policies calculated to gain the support of voters in those two states. Given the deep aversion to "flip flopping" on the part of candidates, positions adopted at the start of the campaign will be carried through to the general election. It would not do to say one thing to voters in New Hampshire and another thing to voters in California. To deal with this, the increasingly sophisticated art of obfuscation is required: another malady of modern politics.

This lament is borne of a very low estimation of the American public. It presumes that the vast majority of voters in the U.S. are either uninformed, lazy, or slow witted. Candidates, and as importantly their financial backers, seem to assume that voters in the rest of the United States reserve their opinions until the victories and electoral votes start piling up. It is a discredit to the U.S. electorate that this assumption has merit. To sacrifice or abandon one's political beliefs in order be on the side of a winner is lazy and opportunistic.

There is nothing necessarily undemocratic or unfair about the way the presidential primary system is set up. The political sensibilities of voters in New Hampshire should not in any way influence voters in Nebraska. Once the vagaries and generalities about "putting people to work" and "getting the nation moving" are gotten past the real issues emerge and those issues are not general or vague. Just as farm policy has little import to voters in Michigan, manufacturing and industrial policy have little import to voters in New Hampshire and Iowa. However voters in New Hampshire feel about free trade, voters in Michigan are likely to feel different. If voters in Michigan want to abandon their opinions in order to climb on a bandwagon launched in New Hampshire that is their prerogative, but they should not blame New Hampshire or the "system" for it. They are in no way obliged.

To those around the nation who feel they are being cheated or short changed by the early primaries in New Hampshire and Vermont I ask who cares what voters in Vermont and New Hampshire think? Why should voters in Alabama care one whit who voters in New Hampshire think is the best candidate? If voters around the nation are firm in their political positions and at all informed they will not, or at least should not, be swayed by what voters in New Hampshire think. A vote in New Hampshire does not count any more than a vote in Texas.

If the assumption that voters in New Hampshire and Vermont set the table for the rest of the nation is valid, do not blame the system. The system does not vote. Blame the voter. If voters in Ohio are inclined to base their votes on what voters in New Hampshire think they are only short changing themselves. Very few, however, are willing to blame voters for anything, certainly not in public. That is why every unexpected result and every brow raising victory is greeted with arguments that the system is askew and should be reformed. The system is not to blame. If anything is to blame it is the voter. But let's keep tinkering with the primary system. If we can somehow get it just right there should be fewer surprises. The most electable candidate will win every time, and who doesn't want the most electable candidate to win?

At this point in the campaign it is not really about voters at all. It is about money and backing. Presidential hopefuls are looking for momentum and all that it brings with it. They want to demonstrate "electability" and the first step takes place in New Hampshire. The answer to the question of who cares about New Hampshire is presidential hopefuls do. The answer to the question of why anyone else should care about New Hampshire is because presidential hopefuls do.