A Vote of Confidence for Governor Spitzer

The news comes out yesterday that an FBI sting has revealed that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer patronized pricey prostitutes. The cable news hosts are indignant: “Greta, Tucker, Wolf, how could such an ethical man do such a bad thing!?!”

But what if the only thing that we can really accuse this good good lawyer of is breaking a bad bad law?

You might want to fault Spitzer for being dishonest with his wife. But what business is that of ours? No matter what either of them says publicly, none of us knows the arrangement that the two of them have between themselves. Perhaps Eliot’s tendency to “blow off steam” every so often is just what keeps his marriage healthy. Who are we to judge? And what if we assume that his family forgives him? Wasn’t Bill Clinton largely forgiven by America for doing something that was in a real sense worse (Spitzer was paying a professional, whereas Clinton had a personal relationship with a subordinate)?

But Clinton didn’t break the law, you say (at least not until he lied under oath about it). And furthermore, unlike Clinton, Spitzer was elected for his record as a prosecutor – a man of the highest ethical profile. But being ethical and obeying the law are different. An ethical person, in certain instances, has a duty to break (or refuse to prosecute) a law that he believes is unjust – it’s what kept the Underground Railroad running and speakeasies pouring. Shouldn’t we at least be somewhat relieved to know that this public servant, despite every appearance to the contrary until today, won’t let the law stop him from doing what’s right – or even just what he thinks is right at a certain particular moment?

Of course Spitzer’s solicitation(s?) was(were?) no act of civil disobedience, and there’s no need to get into the Genealogy of Morals here, but what about that law that Spitzer broke? Who’s the real victim when a consenting adult wants to pay for sex with another consenting adult who wants to be paid for it? Certainly the $5,000 an hour prostitute doesn’t want our help. One argument goes that prostitution is illegal because of the violence that sometimes goes with it – but we could still ban the violence without prohibiting the transaction. And isn’t the violence harder to detect when the whole business is taken underground?

Leaving aside a discussion of what reasonable folk argue are the proven benefits of the operations of the World's Oldest Profession, I could think of at least thirty five billion things that I’d rather have FBI agents direct their efforts toward than bringing down a high class prostitution ring – searching caves in Tora Bora, working ladles in soup kitchens, shoveling snow off of Cleveland’s sidewalks...

Instead we have them busting up victimless market transactions between consenting adults. And that’s what’s most interesting about this whole thing: Spitzer was once the scourge of Wall Street, who prosecuted a ruthless campaign against, among other things, CEO pay; i.e., a ruthless campaign against adults who wanted to pay other adults to work for them. So what goes around comes around. A lesson learned seems like the opposite of a reason for Spitzer to resign.

Update: Nice piece from Nora Ephron at Huffington Post: "New York's Senator Chuck Schumer has been heard from on the question of what is to be done about Eliot Spitzer. He has gone out on a limb to say he is sad for Spitzer's family but he isn't going to comment until Spitzer is more forthcoming. I can only suggest that Schumer has not read the indictment, since there's no way to do so without hoping that there will be nothing more forthcoming. New York's other Senator also had something to say on the subject yesterday, and it may not surprise you to hear that she somehow managed to make Senator Schumer look brave. "Let's wait and see what comes out over the next few days," Hillary Clinton said."