The Governor and the Whore. An Observation
March 20th, 2008 Posted in Prostitution, Politics, Concrete incident or processThis story, so riveting in the moment, flashed through the public consciousness like a transient case of dysentery. Correct medical treatment and it goes away. The governor resigned. Stop press. Story over.
His attacks on Wall Street firms and prostitution rings when he was state attorney general were well publicized but details about him–who he actually was, his purpose, his ideology–were missing. He garnered a large percentage of the vote in his successful run for the governorship but it proved not especially loyal, like a shallow pool it evaporated quickly under a hot sun. But, though he never made a visceral connection with the people, for awhile he represented clean government and an apparent determination that no person or organization would be immune, that no one stood above the law. This is why we voted for him.
As new governor he used the same aggressive tactics that worked so well within the system of justice. This time it was in service of a reform agenda. The idea seems to have been to change the rules for campaign contributions and weaken the hold on the state senate by an upstate conservative group that had been blocking progressive legislation in the state for years.
The organization of the state government in place now has power divided into three parts: (1) the governor and his entourage who offer programs; and those who determine their legislative fates, (2) the Republican clique in the state senate lead by a old, tough, and street-wise politician, and (3) a Democratic clique in the state assembly lead by an equally strong-willed politician from the big city. The philosophy of these latter two leaders appears to be the age old failing of established cadres–a confusion of self-interest with the people’s business. They seem to see the process as a search for a compromise that allows each to claim an advantage (that somewhere down the road may have a monetary value) for himself and his loyal associates and clients.
An unresolvable (outside of ordinary reason) confrontation between the new governor and the old senate leader in hindsight became inevitable and tragic. In psychological space the two might have found a mutually beneficial relationship. The tough older man introducing the younger man (in some way possibly traumatized by a excessively demanding father) into a more reasonable and realistic adult masculinity, while, in the other direction, the older man might have allowed himself to see the moral possibility of unselfish service to the larger community with no recompense except the act itself. This is the traditional way of the combat soldier, the warrior.
So the struggle commenced and it quickly took the form of legal threat–each man was vulnerable to a felony charge that if provable would end his career. The senator had a part-time job with an investment firm that had the appearance of a cover for political pay-offs; the governor was suspected of misreporting the use of his own funds for his own election and for misusing state employees to investigate the senator. The disagreement between the two men was not merely rhetorical. There were real downside threats remarked on in the public press.
Meanwhile the governor had fallen into an unfortunate habit of assignations with prostitutes on trips out of town. A pattern of behavior, a moral short-cut. There is a pleasure involved, an established way (via an escort service), a sense of security, a confidence. It becomes an addiction.
The story broke through the New York Times and it immediately took a distorted shape. A proprietor of a claimed call-girl service and his three office/telephone employees were arrested by federal authorities on a charge of operating a prostitution service. The governor was not charged but merely listed a one of ten clients. These clients ordinarily remain anonymous and are not the targets of the procedure. But in this case a series of flags are waved to call journalistic attention–the federal prosecutors who appeared in court were easily identified as specialists in investigations of crimes by governmental officials. The evidence in the case including wire-tap transcripts and close observation of travel and booked hotel rooms and descriptions of bank transfers all concerned client #9, who happened to be the governor. The call-girl who was the one who entertained him in the identified hotel room just happened to be in court as a witness against the ring. It was the opposite of the cover-up, it was a cover-off. Finally it seems a New York Times reporter got the governor’s name from a source who because of journalistic ethics can not be revealed and the rest is splash of publicity, general public shock and rapid denouement and closure.
A key moment: someone within the Republican state senate majority threatened the governor with impeachment if he did not resign within 48 hours.
Impeached for what? Having heterosexual sex?
Of course the governor was revealed a hypocrite for he prosecuted others, and denounced them in moral terms, for the same deeds that he committed. But if hypocrisy were the door to impeachment the whole governmental apparatus, federal, state and local, would grind to a happy stop. It does not seem to wash. There was an immediate outcry among the people asking for more information about the source of the inappropriate release of the governor’s name among other issues.
The New York Times received over 400 questions and short comments from readers on this case before they closed the option. Anyone looking over the list (admittedly edited by the Time’s staff to keep out the nasties and the irrational) must notice a high level of intelligence and a real concern to get the story in its complexity and reach a closer approximation of truth and justice.
Please notice the interpretive spin I have introduced. I focus on the very serious conflict between the Democratic governor and the Republican clique in the state senate as background for the, I presume, illegal release of the governor’s name as client #9. Whether there is a connect or a disconnect between these two facts I do not know. The evidence is circumstantial in either case.
The existence of multiple spins is the point. Let me call it a sociological point.
More on this in our next post.
Take care of yourself.
Notes. A few articles from the New York Times and Washington Post reporting on and analyzing this case. If these addresses are blocked send me an email for access to other copies.
You must be logged in to post a comment.