What Eliot Spitzer Should Say To Save His Career

Eliot Spitzer is no doubt wondering what he can do to save his career now that it has been revealed that he paid a high-class prostitute for sex. When New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey was being sued for sexual harassment by his former male lover, Golan Cipel, whom McGreevey had appointed as his homeland security advisor, the governor asked the gay-rights group the Human Rights Campaign for advice about what he should say. The group, which has always tried to be very helpful to corrupt politicians, recommended that he refer to himself as a "gay-American."

Sadly, there is no well-funded lobbyist group for men who enjoy the services of prostitutes that Eliot Spitzer can turn to -- at least not yet -- but if there were, I am sure they would give Spitzer the same advice the HRC gave McGreevey: he should become the first sitting governor in American history to say the words, "At a point in every person's life, one has to look deeply into the mirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world, not as we may want to see it or hope to see it, but as it is. And so, my truth is that I am a whoremonger-American."

Many of our founding fathers, men like Benjamin Franklin, for example, were whoremonger-Americans. In more recent times a number of great political men have patronized prostitutes, men like Jerry Springer, Rep. Joe Waggonner, Rep. Allan Howe, Rep. Fred Richmond, Dick Morris and most recently Louisiana Senator David Vitter, and these are just the ones who got caught. Many of these men have been forced to live in shame for who they are and their political careers have been ruined. But is that fair?

In this era of loosening sexual morality is whoremongering really the worst sin? Is it more of a sin than homosexuality? Is it more of a sin than committing adultery for free? According to the 1948 Kinsey report, 70% of American men patronized prostitutes at least once. A 1994 survey by Edward O. Laumann put this figure at 15%. While it is possible that Kinsey's data was abnormally high, it is also possible that Laumann's lower figure may be accounted for by the fact that fewer men have needed to pay for sex in the decades since the 1950s because of changing sexual mores. Now certainly there are many men who still cannot get a woman to sleep with them for free no matter how loose sexual mores become. For men like Eliot Spitzer and David Vitter, it may be impossible to find a woman who is willing to sleep with them unless they pay for it, and in the case of Spitzer, unless he pays a lot. (In fact, the picture that accompanies this post may give a clue as to why Spitzer may have needed to pay for sex.) But isn't it possible that for Spitzer and Vitter, men who have dedicated their lives to upholding virtue and morality, patronizing prostitutes is a way of rejecting the sexual immorality of the present and returning to the traditional mores of the past when there were rules about who successful men could sleep with?

Of course, like most conservatives, I deplore the loosening sexual mores of our time. I would like to return to the 1950s when men who wanted extramarital sex had to pay for it at great personal risk. Indeed, the way our society has defined sexual deviancy down with its acceptance homosexuality, illegitimacy, adultery and premarital sex has made the lives of men like Spitzer and Vitter even more difficult. Gay marriage has weakened their own marriages (a fact that Spitzer, a supporter of gay marriage, may have learned too late) and yet they may be unable or unwilling to cheat on their wives the way men like John McCain, Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich and many other politicians have. While these politicians lured decent women into committing adultery, Spitzer and Vitter instead committed adultery with women who were already fallen and they did so at great financial cost and risk to their careers. Whether because of necessity or a deep-seated belief in traditional values, Spitzer and Vitter have rejected the free-sex, anything goes sexual mores of our era and lived by the sexual code of another time, a simpler, better time. Maybe Vitter and Spitzer could not have found women who wanted to sleep with them for free, but the fact is they went ahead and paid for it. Should they be condemned more than men like McCain, Clinton, Giuliani and Gingrich just because they courageously limited their whoremongering to women who had already lost their virtue?

Now some people say that Vitter and Spitzer are hypocrites. Vitter has been a crusader for family values and Spitzer prosecuted prostitution rings with the same zeal that has now been loosed on the prostitution ring he patronized, reportedly even at the time he was breaking up other rings that apparently withheld their services from him. But as I have said before, hypocrisy is not necessarily a bad thing. Ted Haggard recognized that that having meth-fueled sex with a gay prostitute was wrong, which is far superior to having meth-fueled sex with a gay prostitute and thinking it was a good thing. Spitzer and Vitter recognize more than anyone how terrible it is that the loose sexual mores of our time have driven them to seek the succor of prostitutes. They know first-hand what it is like to be the victims of the sexual immorality that is all around us and because of that they have made it their life's work to try to prevent other men from making the same mistakes they have. Shouldn't that count for something?

While I cannot deny the glee I feel that a holier-than-thou Democrat who is supporting Hillary Clinton has been hoist on his own petard, I cannot in good conscience say that Spitzer should resign, while Vitter, whose seat would be filled with a Democrat if he quit, should not. I am not a hypocrite when it comes to hypocrisy.

Instead of resigning, Spitzer should admit that, like many American men, he is a whoremonger-American, and while that may not be a good thing, it is better than the alternative. Why should his career be ruined when many other politicians have survived cheating on their wives only because he paid a professional instead of sullying the reputation of a decent woman? Whoremonger-Americans have rejected the sexual immorality of our era. They want to return to the sexual immorality of the past, which was not quite as bad. Instead of luring good women into becoming adulterers, they only consort with women who are already fallen. They want to return us to an era when men tried to be faithful to their wives and if they couldn't be faithful at least they paid a professional. Whoremonger-Americans like Spitzer and Vitter are victims of a sexual double standard that gives men a pass if they lure moral women into sexual immorality but condemns men who try to stop the spread of sexual immorality by sleeping with prostitutes who have already been morally compromised and paying handsome compensation for it.

I am not saying that Spitzer should be proud of being a whoremonger-American the way Jim McGreevey is proud of spending so many years in the closet in order to avoid risk to his political career, giving his lover a job for which he was unqualified and then finally admitting the truth when he had no other choice. For Spitzer admitting he is a whoremonger-American would be more akin to an Alcoholics Anonymous member saying, "I am an alcoholic." But instead of suffering from the disease of alcoholism, Spitzer is a victim of the sickness that has infected our sexually immoral society. By admitting to being whoremonger-Americans, men like Spitzer would not just be helping themselves but they would be helping America get itself on the 12-step program back to sexual sobriety.

Of course, in a perfect world men would be faithful to their wives and alcoholics wouldn't drink. No one believes that more than whoremonger-Americans like Spitzer and Vitter, who might have been faithful to their wives if they weren't constantly bombarded with sexual imagery from the media. But instead of condemning whoremonger-Americans we should recognize them as heroes who have resisted the temptation of freely available sex and through their own example are returning us to an era when men rarely cheated on their wives and even then only if they could afford it. Spitzer is no saint, but he and Vitter are part of a movement of men who want to turn back the clock to a more virtuous era, a time that may not have been perfect but was better than we have now. Whoremonger-Americans like Spitzer and Vitter are pioneers and like many pioneers they are unfairly being singled out. Men are not all going to be faithful to their wives overnight, but by limiting their adultery to paid professionals, Spitzer, Vitter and other whoremonger-Americans have taken one small step toward that goal and for that they should be congratulated not driven from office.

Share This Post




Technorati Tags: Jon Swift, Eliot Spitzer, 2008 Election, Republicans, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, David Vitter, Whoremonger-Americans, Politics