Roger’s Rules

March 11th, 2008 1:33 am

Why you shouldn’t let Eliot Spitzer get away with being called a hypocrite

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

Having just learned the news about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s expensive taste in tarts, a friend emailed to ask me what was the fancy word was that meant taking malicious pleasure in the misfortune of others: “Spitzer?” he suggested.

I have never liked Mr. Spitzer and his intrusive, rogue-prosecutorial ways. I take it amiss that even in his disgrace we are all going to be subjected to a non-stop Spitzerfest for the next 48-72 hours. Why can’t he simply disappear? I am already more than sated on the stories of The Emperor’s Club, whose experts earn nearly as much as a successful law partner. Still, there have been a few gems to emerge from the glee. My favorite so far was highlighted by Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit: “Prostitute Admits Link to Eliott Spitzer; Resigns From Escort Service in Disgrace.” Pretty good, eh?

There have also been a spate–no, a cataract–of reflections about hypocrisy, including an amusing passel at Protein Wisdom. My own feeling is that there are so many reasons to dislike Eliot Spitzer that I would hate the issue of hypocrisy to obscure his many other, more heinous faults. In fact, I am not entirely sure Mr. Spitzer rises to the level of the genuine hypocrite.

Some readers may recall the sad story of George Roche III, the former president of Hillsdale College who was alleged to have had an affair with his son’s wife. It was a sordid, unhappy story: the woman committed suicide. Mr. Roche resigned but always, so far as I know, protested his innocence.

I wrote a brief piece about the case. I was not so much interested in defending Mr. Roche–as I said at the time, about his guilt or innocence I knew exactly as much as my readers, namely nothing–but in reflecting about the oft-made charge of hypocrisy.

When I was in college, I recalled, there was a story going around about the German philosopher Max Scheler (1874-1928). Scheler was known for inspiring ethical meditations with titles like “On Man’s Place in the Cosmos.” He was also, according to this story, known for his energetic philandering. A distraught admirer approached him about this discrepancy: how could he write all those noble, morally uplifting works and yet lead such a discreditable personal life? The response attributed to Scheler is illuminating. The sign that points to Boston, he said, doesn’t have to go there.

In effect, I noted, Scheler was defending hypocrisy. He was saying that the ideals he articulated were more important than his personal failure to achieve them. When the story of Bill Clinton’s liaison with Monica Lewinsky became public, there was plenty of condemnation, but almost nobody talked about hypocrisy: lying, yes; moral turpitude, by all means; but not hypocrisy. That is because hypocrisy is essentially an aristocratic failing. It extols “the best” even if the best is generally unattainable.

This indeed is one reason that hypocrisy, among all the vices, is regarded with particular disdain and horror by egaliatarians. A hypocrite publicly upholds noble values and standards of behavior even though he knows he may sometimes fall short of the conduct they require. He does this because he recognizes that those values are worthy of support and commendation even if he cannot always embody them.

La Rochefoucauld’s observation that “hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue” will doubtless be trotted out early and often when in the case of Eliot Spitzer and the girls. It is a famous, though often misinterpreted, observation. The epigram has generally been presented as meaning–in the words of one journalist–that “the loudest moralizers may be most suspect.” But I believe that La Rochefoucauld meant to suggest that hypocrisy was an implicit acknowledgment of the claims of virtue. Otherwise, why bother with dissimulation?

There are, as I say, many reasons to dislike Eliot Spitzer. I, too, hope he goes away, and quickly. The music critic Tim Page, referring to an unpleasant and pretentious college president, observed that he was the sort of chap that gave “pseudo-intellectuality a bad name.” I feel similarly about Eliot Spitzer and hypocrisy. His behavior gives that ambiguous vice a bad name. What’s wrong with Eliot Spitzer is not so much that he praised good things and did bad ones. Most of the items he championed in his various moral campaigns were, when you looked behind the rhetoric, of dubious value. Really, he was a power-hungry, regulation-crazed functionary whose chief sin was to harness the power of the state to destroy his enemies and aggrandize himself. Had he been a little more hypocritical he might have been less dangerous.

Read bullet | (32) Comments bullet

32 Comments

WILLIAM:

Yes, but doesn’t this put Spitzer on the fast track to the presidency?

Mar 11, 2008 - 6:14 am mhw:

For what it’s worth, I generally agree with Roger’s point.

I address it on the March 11, 2008 post at:

http://hypocrisy-incorporated.blogspot.com/

Mar 11, 2008 - 6:26 am PersonFromPorlock:

Years ago, George Will noted that hypocrisy is how we raise our children to be better than us and, IIRC, “…not the greatest of sins but the least of virtues.”

Mar 11, 2008 - 6:42 am david:

There are two forms of political hypocrisy relevant to this discussion: The ‘do as I say not as I do’ type and the ‘do as I say and not as I do because I just sponsored a bill that will imprison you if you don’t’. The first is sad human nature, the second is despicable. Spitzer is guilty of the first, as he did not vote for the laws that he prosecuted, though even with him there is quite a grey area; prosecutors wield the potent power to try one illegality over another.

While I get the gist of your article it comes off a bit as a defense of hypocrisy in politics - or philosophy -generally. As always, shades of grey.

BTW thanks for that Sheler quote; it is worth remembering.

Mar 11, 2008 - 6:46 am Mahon:

Without hypocrisy there can be no civilization, because we are all savages at some level. Spitzer was a high-class thug, in the sense that “Kristen” was a high-class prostitute. Indeed, he should aspire to hypocrisy.

Mar 11, 2008 - 6:58 am Neil Berkman:

Your last paragraph articulates perfectly my feelings regarding Spitzer. Thank you for that. I look forward to the ticker-tape parade down Wall Street honoring the woman in question.

Mar 11, 2008 - 7:39 am Joshua Macy:

David, Spitzer was guilty of the second…while he may not have voted to enact the laws he enforced, he made a good deal of political hay out of enforcing them, including vigorous public denouncements of the people he was sending to prison for the “crimes” that he would later (or perhaps concurrently–this may not have been a recent hobby of his) be paying them to perform. So, yeah, not just sad, but despicable.

Mar 11, 2008 - 7:40 am renminbi:

Thank-you for the insight; accusations of hypocrisy do mask nihilistic attacks on virtue itself.

Spitzer got 69(not joking)% of the vote for governor.It was obvious to anyone who was paying any attention at all that this man was a thug and an extortianist; all anyone had to do was read The NY Post or the WSJ. It was all out there, but most people didn’t care. There is something bloody wrong with our electorate today.

Mar 11, 2008 - 7:44 am Robert Arvanitis:

Spitzer is sinful in so many ways, no denials.

But in his dealings with financial markets - “Though he believed not in God, yet he did God’s work.” I believe in free markets and limited rules, but also in making everyone play by those same few rules.

In the insurance sector, he exposed the rotten core of manipulation. The majority of honest insurers were glad to see the deceits of AIG, Berkshire Hathaway and a few others exposed. Same in the broking industry. It’s sad now to see “revisionists” lamenting the lost franchises at AIG and Marsh. But those firms have merely reverted to industry averages when their financial steroids were taken away.

As for the NYSE, there was no excuse for Grasso’s pay. A grotesque distortion of governance, when stock companies set compensation for the chief regulator of the stock exchange.

Mar 11, 2008 - 8:02 am ken:

Hypocrisy is usually trumpeted the loudest by those who believe in nothing. It is the one epithet they can hurl which can never be turned around on them.

Mar 11, 2008 - 8:08 am william:

Is it even possible for a civilized human being to go thru life without being a hypocrite–especially about sex. I don’t use $5000 call girls, but some web sites I’ve visited would be grounds for divorce. Our virtues and our vices are proportinate to our income. Actually I’m surprised that Spitzer was interested in something beyond power and control. His sin doesn’t humanize him though. He looks like a fool.

Mar 11, 2008 - 8:08 am Jim O'Sullivan:

A vicious, vindictive and arrogant man who has no business holding a position of governmental authority over any person who values his or her freedom. What a wonderful day was yesterday!
But don’t hold your breath. He’s not quitting till he has a deal with the prosecutors (oh, it’s so much fun to type that!!). The Governorship is the biggest bargaining chip he holds.

Mar 11, 2008 - 8:10 am iSpec:

As nothing more than an onlooker, I am most interested to see just how powerful Master Spitzer believes he is. His fight or resignation will tell us so much about the character he is.

Mar 11, 2008 - 8:24 am David D:

“A hypocrite publicly upholds noble values and standards of behavior even though he knows he may sometimes fall short of the conduct they require.”

Well, no.

A hypocrite publicly upholds noble values and standards of behavior even though he knows he has no intention of trying to meet that standard.

Trying and failing is not hypocrisy. “Rules are for other people” is an example of Spitzerian hypocrisy.

Spitzer, of course, is an evil thug who found that destroying other people is an easy means of self-promotion. . . and he is a hypocrite.

Mar 11, 2008 - 8:45 am Chris B.:

Robert said:

“As for the NYSE, there was no excuse for Grasso’s pay. A grotesque distortion of governance, when stock companies set compensation for the chief regulator of the stock exchange.”

All well and good, a state of affairs crying out for reform. But does this justify Spitzer investigating whether Grasso was having an affair with his secretary?

The man was a menace to limited government and the rule of law. Good riddance.

Mar 11, 2008 - 9:24 am Johan Amedeus Metesky:

Spitzer went after Richard Grasso for receiving $140 million in salary and bonuses for heading the NYSE. I did the math and Grasso’s pay works out to ~ $6700/hr., the same order of magnitude as the salaries of the hookers Spitzer was patronizing - $2700-$5500 an hour.

Spitzer is a child of wealth and he’s worked in the public sector for most of his adult life. Even when he worked at a private law firm in the 90s he specialized in consumer and antitrust issues. In other words, he’s never accomplished anything of note on his own in his life and has virtually no experience producing goods or services - he certainly doesn’t know what it takes to create wealth. For someone with Spitzer’s high intelligence plus a very successful father, the drive to prove himself must be enormous. Going into business to prove himself would have been too risky - little chance he could surpass his father’s success, so instead he went into public sector law to make his mark. Born into wealth and privilege he may assume that all wealth is the result of privilege, not merit or hard work so he’s gone after the people who could do what he couldn’t.

That Spitzer was hoisted on the petard of financial oversight he endorsed and helped expand is almost delicious. It was his bank that initially contacted law enforcement because of some questionable money transfers. As AG, Spitzer used commonplace technical violations to steamroll (his term) businesses and businesspeople into settling out of court. His actual trial record was not very good. If they indict him on some kind of money laundering, wire fraud or financial structuring charges it will appear that the karmic wheel has turned back on him.

I have to say, though, that all the pundits and bloggers who are mentioning the word schadenfreude are using it improperly. Schadenfreude is not simply taking pleasure at another’s fall, it’s taking pleasure at the misfortune of one’s friend.

Mar 11, 2008 - 9:26 am Andrew Ian Dodge:

Surely the fact that he campaigned against Grand Theft Auto for its depiction of prostitution adds a certain flavour of hypocrisy consider the manner of his fall from grace?

Mar 11, 2008 - 9:47 am Edward:

With respect to the charges of hypocrisy and whether they apply to Mr. Spitzer, it is one thing to say the prostitution is wrong and then to hire a prostitute, but it is another thing entirely to prosecute people for being involved in prostitution only for oneself to then become involved. This is why the “sign to Boston” example doesn’t quite apply.

Mar 11, 2008 - 10:08 am Elsy:

prostitution and men…it will never end! He doesn’t need to step down, but I think he will.

BTW I found some fantastic articles…A MUST read for EVERYONE “The Hussein Dynamic” at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=171 and “Follow the Money” at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=165

The writing is BRILLIANT and goes beyond what the MSM feeds us. It was about time!!!!! Their sections for “Humor” and “Political Analysis” are FANTASTIC!!!!

http://savagepolitics.com

Mar 11, 2008 - 11:09 am Perry Clark:

Having not the time to peruse the entire array of comments, I apologize if this point has already been made.

It appears that there are two schools of thought regarding what is, exactly, a hypocrite. One is that wielded by Mr. Kimball here–that a hypocrite is one who espouses standards of behavior “even though he knows he may sometimes fall short of the conduct they require. He does this because he recognizes that those values are worthy of support and commendation even if he cannot always embody them.” Another, less kind, view is one that holds that the hypocrite is a base dissembler–one who publicly holds forth a standard but who has no intention of ever trying to meet it.

As is often the case, when unsure on such matters I plunge straight for the OED. Happily, there I find that my own predilection, toward the latter definition above, is strongly bolstered by the definition on offer: “one who falsely professes to be virtuously or religiously inclined; one who pretends to have feelings or beliefs of a higher order than his real ones.”

Unfortunately, it seems there is a a common tendency to muddy the meaning of the word by its use in the former manner. I fear that Mr. Kimball here has contributed to the confusion, though I stand ready to be instructed by wiser minds than my own that his use is the better. Certainly, if one uses hypocrite to mean someone who espouses a standard whilst knowing that on occasion he himself may fail to meet it, Mr. Spitzer seems better classified as some other, meaner brute. But if one uses the word in my own favored manner, its baseness returns, with a tighter and more uncomfortable fit for the likes of New York’s current governor.

Mar 11, 2008 - 11:34 am Hilaire de Sauveterre:

Sir-

You are exactly right in your interpretation of La Rochefoucauld’s oft-quoted observation. What is easily lost in the maelstrom of accusation and recrimination that engulfs a controversy of this kind is that hypocrisy is not itself a vice; rather, hypocrisy is a mitigation of vice. The fault of a man like Mr. Spitzer lies in his offense - engaging the services of a prostitute - not his prior condemnation of whoring. Indeed, his prior inconsistent statements are to his credit and should not now be entered as debits in his moral ledger to increase his fault.

As between an adulterer who publicly upholds the sanctity of marriage and expresses contrition after the fact and an adulterer who encourages others to emulate his sins, the former is surely the better man. The guilt attributable to adultery is the same for both men, but the latter would bring down all of society with him.

A defense of hypocrisy is not, therefore, a defense of the underlying sin. It is emphatically not the universalized “tu quoque” defense that because “everyone has something in their past,” no one should be condemned too harshly. It is, instead, a recognition that social norms and sanctions must be upheld in spite of - indeed, because of - the tendency of the old Adam to out.

Kind regards,

Hilaire de Sauveterre

Mar 11, 2008 - 11:38 am JG:

Hypocrisy gets off too lightly here. True, as Scheler observed, a sign pointing properly in the direction of Boston need not also travel to Boston. Yet the sign’s duty is to point in the proper direction. Hypocrisy impeaches not only the fortitude of the hypocrite, but also the soundness of the hypocrite’s judgment as to which way virtue (or Boston) lies.

Spitzer’s own pronounced inability to conform to prohibitions against prostitution and interstate transportation of prostitutes calls into question the moral validity of such laws. Yet as governor of New York, Spitzer willingly perpetuates these laws and the misguided oppression they work upon the citizenry. Thus, Spitzer the hypocrite is not guilty merely for the fact that flesh is weak, but also for the fact that he chooses to punish the weak.

Mar 11, 2008 - 12:49 pm Bill's Notes:

More on hypocrisy

Roger Kimball weighs in on hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is one word that really demonstrates the cultural divide. For those conservatively incl…

Mar 11, 2008 - 1:04 pm chris:

Finally, emperor Eliot is going to find out what it is like to be at the wrong end of the prosecutorial telescope. It is a fitting comeuppance for one who prosecuted others firstly for his own vanity and secondly as a matter of law.
Hypocrisy? No. In a morally relativistic world in which the liberals inhabit, moral terpitude is in the eye of the beholder which in this case is the mainstream media, however I don’t think this one is going away any time soon. Spitzer has a lot of enemies who would like nothing better than to see him hoisted on his own petard. There will be alot of high 5’s at the bars around Wall St. tonight.

Mar 11, 2008 - 1:58 pm Cristina:

No. A hypocrite is a Tartuffe, a person who openly preaches values and takes advantage of others’ beliefs (and trust) for personal gain/gratification by engaging in acts that are the very denial of those values. It’s that simple. Spitzer seems to fit the bill. Heck, for all I know his type may have been stocked as early as Theophrastus.

Mar 11, 2008 - 2:41 pm william:

Prostitution should be nationalized. It is grossly unfair that honest laboring men, many in greater need than he, have to make do with internet porn instead of $5000 hookers. Surely a caring govt. can work out a system of rebates, tax credits or whatever so that all can have access to this vital, life enhancing asset.

Mar 11, 2008 - 3:30 pm John Dunshee:

First of all, let’s acknowledge something. For $4300 a pop, the girl’s got to be talented. We’re not talking Hugh Grant and the transvestite here.

You have to give Spitzer some credit. At least he didn’t raid the secretarial pool or take advantage of some intern. He engaged a highly paid and skilled professional.

I don’t care for Spitzer, but he’s certainly not the first, nor will he be the last, to profess to standards that he does not meet.

$4300? The girl must be a virtuoso.

Mar 11, 2008 - 7:47 pm Mark in Texas:

I still can’t get past $5000 for an hour with a prostitute. In my life I can remember some extremely pleasant experiences but I honestly don’t think that I would have paid $5000 for any of them.

Finally, it occurred to me that the $5000 is not because the prostitutes did anything special but rather they demanded that much to have sex with Elliot Spitzer. Back when I was a PFC stationed at Fort Bliss, I occasionally crossed the border to Juarez where prostitutes charged considerably less than $5000. There was a bar called The Cave where the entertainment consisted of a naked woman picking some random stranger from the crowd and coupling with him on the floor. Although I never saw it, there was reported to be a show where a woman had sex with a donkey. While I am not familiar with the economics of live sex shows in Mexico, I do not believe that these women received anything like $5000 for their exertions. The bottom line is that women will have sex with random strangers or donkeys for less money than they require to have sex with Elliot Spitzer.

Mar 11, 2008 - 7:53 pm fidens:

A person who fails to uphold the moral standards he or she advocates is not necessarily a hypocrite (often, like me, they are just ordinary sinners). A hypocrite is someone who advocates moral standards which he or she does not hold.

While it’s not clear to me that Spitzer professed a set of values which he didn’t actually hold, his conduct certainly suggests that this is the case.

It’s interesting though, that in his mea culpa he noted that he had failed to maintain the standards that he had set for himself, which is as good a definition of ’secular sinfulness’ as I’ve ever heard.

Mar 12, 2008 - 12:38 am Classical Values:

The case for prosecutorial hypocrisy

Yesterday, I opined that what’s happening to Eliot Spitzer couldn’t be happening to a nicer guy. That’s because he’s part and parcel of the system that did and does to people the very things that are now likely to be…

Mar 12, 2008 - 6:46 am Maggie's Farm:

Final word on ex -Gov. Spitzer

Quoted from Roger, who understands LaR’s quip:La Rochefoucauld’s observation that “hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue” will doubtless be trotted out early and often when in the case of Eliot Spitzer and the girls. It is a famous, t…

Mar 12, 2008 - 4:04 pm Chester White:

I went to college with Spitzer. He was a first-class self-absorbed student-council-president-type jerkwad at 18 and nothing I’ve heard this week is a surprise at all.

Mar 12, 2008 - 4:26 pm