Why Weiner’s Going Under the Bus
Is there any redeeming social value to the tawdry tale of Anthony Weiner?
Only this: The nationwide revulsion at the conduct of the congressman has compelled the leadership and members of the House Democratic caucus to demand he resign immediately and cease not only distracting them from their work but stinking up their party.
Traditional morality has just been affirmed by Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats.
For consider what it was Weiner did.
He sent lewd and pornographic photos of himself to half a dozen women, including a college student, a stripper and a 17-year-old who had befriended him on Facebook. He initiated “sexting” with women who had simply expressed admiration for his politics and leadership.
On seeing a few of the photos in the tabloid press and reading of the others and Weiner’s language, the adjectives that come to mind are gross, infantile, weird, sick, suicidal.
How could a congressman sit in his office at night text-messaging these kinds of pictures, engaging in that kind of talk, when he was surely aware he was being monitored by enemies who would relish ending his career in the kind of disgrace he faces today?
But how does Weiner’s disgrace and inevitable departure from politics affirm the old morality?
Again, consider. Weiner has not been accused of a crime. His exchanges with the 17-year-old are of a flirtatious and suggestive nature than a proposition. And while Pelosi has asked the ethics committee to look into his conduct, its investigation has yet to begin.
Of what exactly, then, is Weiner guilty? He went before the press and lied, defiantly denying he had sent the text messages to the student. Four days later, he admitted to sending the messages.
But did not President Clinton lie, under oath, about a far graver offense, his Oval Office trysts with Monica Lewinsky? Yet, to a man, Senate Democrats refused to remove him. Why, then, must Weiner be removed?
Two decades ago, Rep. Gerry Studds admitted to seducing a 16-year-old male page and taking him on a European junket. Yet when censured by the House, Studds turned his back to the speaker’s chair — and was re-elected repeatedly from his Massachusetts district.
What Weiner did was degraded, but it did not rise to the level of what Studds survived.
Why, then, must Weiner go?
In traditional morality, what Weiner did, engage in immoral and squalid behavior, should result in permanent shame and instant removal from any position of honor.
Adherents of the old morality cannot understand why he is still in Congress. Was not Rep. Chris Lee, also of New York, a Republican, gone in four hours when it was discovered he sent a bare-chested picture of himself to Craigslist?
However, in the new morality of secular humanism, the gay rights movement and the libertarian left, what men or women do in their private lives is their own business. Sexual relations between consenting adults are neither moral nor immoral and should never be criminalized.
Under the new morality, pornography has been decriminalized and pornographic websites are among the most visited on the Internet. As for “sexting,” this practice is today apparently common among teenagers.
Hence the questions: By the standards of the new morality, what did Weiner do immoral? What did he do wrong, other than get caught by Andrew Breitbart?
From all we know, Weiner was engaged in private consensual dirty talk with women who apparently did not object, or they could have outed him or shut him off.
Why, then, are his friends not standing by him? Why is the party he has served faithfully as an attack dog against the GOP and a guard dog of liberalism deserting him? Why does his party want him gone? Why are they throwing him under the bus?
Answer: Weiner is expendable. One can give up a congressman whose House seat is safely Democratic. A pawn can be sacrificed if necessary. But letting a president of one’s own party be thrown out of office is another matter. A party cannot lose its king without suffering the damage the GOP did in the 1970s.
Second, House Democrats recognize that, should they declare themselves guided by the tenets of the new morality, insist that Weiner’s private life is between him and his wife, and that what he did, while embarrassing, was neither criminal nor immoral but only stupid, they would be putting at risk Democrats from districts where the traditional morality still prevails.
The national reaction to Anthony Weiner, the clamor that he get out of the House now, to which the Democratic Party is yielding, testifies to the enduring moral health of the nation.
The culture war is not yet wholly lost.
Tony Viner (I’ll use the correct pronunciation of his surname to avoid salacious innuendos) is a disgusting loud mouth, an inartful liar, a cad and a reprobate. Dishonorable traits for sure, but who is claiming that being a member of the House is strictly limited to men (and ladies) of honor?
According to the latest Rasmussen poll,> 43% of Americans believe that the US Congress is corrupt and that used car salesmen are more ethical. And don’t forget that US Senate majority leader, Harry Read, who threw Viner to the dogs was at one time the head honcho of the reportedly corrupt Nevada Gaming Commission (see here.
Pat, morality back in the good ‘ol days was not quite as sacrosanct as people claim it was. I say let the voters in Viner’s district decide if they want to keep him as their representative.
Pat……The world is full of hypocrites and hypocrisy. Look at the so called “Lion of the Senate” Ted Kennedy. Here’s a man who was a known womanizer,adulterer and drunk who liked spending other people’s money,not his Trust Fund fortune, and gets away with drowning a women during a drunken stupor. But,with the right connections and a perceived importance to the Left Wing of the Democrat Party he gets a pass.As always,there are 2 sets of rules. One for the mundanes and one for the powerful. Or to paraphrase George Orwell “Everyone is equal,but some are more equal.” As far as Cong.Weiner is concerned,his constituents could care less about his personal life,as long as the Checks keep coming. The only culture most of his constituents understand is the culture of The Free Lunch.
Dear Pat, below is an essay from the Spectator. It is a story about Demosthenes. It is the problem with the “new” Democratic morality. Weiner should not resign under the Democrats’ Bill and Hilary Clinton morality standard. I encourage him to stay.
Helen Wood described in last week’s Spectator how she ‘escorted’ a wealthy footballer, Wayne Rooney. He applied for, and got, a super-injunction. So did she, and was refused. What is going on here? The Athenian orator and statesman Demosthenes (384-322 bc) knew.
In 348 bc Demosthenes brought a case against a personal enemy, one Meidias, for punching him while on duty at a religious festival. Demosthenes did not argue on the grounds that this violated a ritual or even just himself. He saw a much larger issue at stake.
Meidias, he argued, confident in his contacts, wealth and reputation, had committed a crime that struck at the very heart of the safety, security and well-being of each and every citizen, whoever they were, rich or poor, great or small, footballers (had they had them then) or escorts; and if that sort of behaviour were ever to be passed over as unimportant, no one, whatever their status, would be safe.
For wrongful acts in violation of the laws were public acts against everyone. If the jurors agreed with him, he went on, ‘the instant this court rises, each of you will walk home, one quicker, another more leisurely, not anxious, not glancing behind him, not fearing whether he is going to run up against a friend or an enemy, a big man or a little one, a strong man or a weak one, or anything of that sort. And why? Because in his heart he knows, and is confident, and has learned to trust the state, that no one shall seize or insult or strike him.’
It is clear that the ‘super-injunction’ is a law for the rich and (in)famous and them alone, as if Wood’s reputation were somehow less valuable to her than Rooney’s to him, and in a case where both were sharing the same, legal, activity.
But on what legal grounds is the reputation of struggling proles less important than footballers’? Demosthenes was right. The Athenians knew that one rule for the rich, one for the poor, made nonsense of the law. One might have thought our judiciary would have noticed. Apparently not. Super-injunctions for all, please – or none.
“Congress consists of one third, more or less, scoundrels; two thirds, more or less, idiots; and three thirds, more or less, poltroons.” – H. L. Mencken
“redeeming social value” – I love that phrase. Whenever I read it in an article or hear it in a speech, I immediately know that I can safely ignore the rest what is going to follow.
I read on anyways because you usually have a few interesting points Pat, and you did. But the last sentence was just gold: “The culture war is not yet wholly lost.” Can we agree to end the culture war in a truce? You know, let each state decide, and let people move from state to state if they’re unhappy? Or is it like the war on drugs & terror: never ending conflict until our nation is broke and broken.
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who DID break the law by patronizing hookers. (Or has prostitution been around so long that this doesn’t offend “traditional morality”?)
I agree, and in addition he’s bright and ambitious so many Dems likely feel OK re a potential rival for power being pushed aside. Liber Jerry’s comment seems to me to be on the mark. Other than behaving like a maladjusted adolescent his revealed sins seem comparatively minor by the standards of today or for that matter any era. Reminds me of the O’Reilly scandal a few tears ago where he paid some serious hush money to a former employee for a gag order.Unless he has equally damaging info on others it looks like he’s gone for awhile.
Liberaltarian: “Can we agree to end the culture war in a truce? You know, let each state decide, and let people move from state to state if they’re unhappy?”
Not really, at least until all sides agree to let the People and states legislate morality themselves where they live, and not allow the federal government to impose its morality by judicial fiat in declaring local morality its elites disagrees with to be unconstitutional.
For example, California voters outlawed gay marriage by passing Proposition 8, and then a homosexual federal judge came along and declared the ban unconstitutional, using the the authority of the federal government as a mechanism to enforce his ban.
If there’s massive grassroots support, no doubt a state will eventually legalize homosexual marriage. Until then, a distant federal authority has no business legislating local morality, or intervening, unless someone is being directly physically harmed by the morality legislated by the People or by the prevailing morality of the community.
With regard to Weiner, the prevailing morality of his district apparently doesn’t care about his pornography-distribution hobby. However, the prevailing morality of the national Democratic Party may decide such a person should be stripped of all power granted at the discretion of the party.
It would be nice if Weiner himself decided he was bringing dishonor on his district, his Party, the House, and the country, but how can a man with know moral bearings decipher honor from dishonor?
So I guess the country may just have to bare the reprobate, and the Democratic Party will have to pay the price for allowing such a cretin to be elected, and then promoting him time and again to positions of higher and higher power.
They will pay this price when the opposition uses him as an indictment of the morality of the entirety of left-liberalism and the Democratic Party.
It looks as if Weiner did _not_ send lewd pictures to the 17-year old girl. If he had, the law would have gotten involved, and the story would be quite different.
I’ve also noticed that in certain factions on the left, the old Clinton-Lewinsky scandal “everyone does it” arguments have re-emerged.
If this is so, why not run with it? Why don’t liberals take the public stance: “Us progressives have nothing to be ashamed of by supporting Weiner, and the voters will validate that position by backing us.”?
Why? Because they know their own, liberal-elite “morality” is totally out of step with that of the average voters, and that the People will NOT back them. Thus, they have adopted a nose-holding pose of indignation with regard to Weiner, even though many of them are not bothered by his hedonism in the least.
I’m not sure what’s more disgusting: Weiner’s base depravity, or liberalism’s two-faced hypocrisy.
Patrick J. Buchanan: 6/16/2011
The three faces of morality,traditional,old and new only serve to sacrifice “your” pawn.And enable the dictates of the President (the King),to remain in good standing,equal to that of being a God.How convient to provide this dichotomy for the flock,in knowing who is and who is not above the law.
Thanking you for your attention to this matter -
Correction # 12 convenient
Vitter visited prostitutes, a crime, and was not prosecuted for it nor asked to resign. Spitzer, visited prostitutes, a crime, was prosecuted for it and was asked to (and did) resign. If this is product of a culture war how is it fought? If there is a winner or loser, which one is which?
What America has lost is the ability to debate anything of substance unless it can identify an issue as “a war.”
There are reasons for this. Wars require but two sides. Thus, the fallacy of false choice is a major strategic weapon. Next, Wars have only two sides and one is forced to chose one or the other. Tribalism rules the day. Wars categorize wounded or killed as “collateral damage” thus depersonalizing both opponents and innocents eliminating guilt over watching lives fall apart, like Anthony Weiner and Larry Craig. A popular TV show is called, “The Biggest Loser.” And, as Chris Hedges showed, War is a force that gives us meaning even if we have to make up dumb reasons for fighting them such as to erradicate “terror” or “drugs” or “immorality” or “debauchery” or “decadence” or “culture of one kind or another.”
By characterizing the saga of Anthony Weiner and others in similar circumstances or even worse, as just another battle in a “war”- in which we participate only vicariously, we free ourselves from looking in the mirror and seeing the frailty, brokeness, failure, and pain in ourselves. We have lost a culture once characterized by huddled masses, yearning to live in society, together, in order to be free. Instead, we find ourselves as combatants trying to exterminate the other half of our population in a “culture war.” And, in losing that, all of us have lost something that would have been really worth fighting for.
I don’t know what you mean, Pat, by the ‘new morality’ or when it supposedly started. I am 53 and I have never thought other people’s sex lives were any business of mine. I remember seeing studies that concluded conservatives not only use porn more frequently than the general population but also have a higher divorce rate, higher teen-age pregnancy rate and higher or tied rate of abortion. Maybe that’s the ‘new’ morality you speak of? I doubt you’re right, if so.