Congressman Anthony Weiner recently made headlines over a Tweeted photo of a groin. He denied that he had sent the photo and insisted that he had been hacked. However, his handling of certain questions led many to doubt his veracity. In a press conference on June 6, he admitted that he had sent the Tweet and that he had lied to cover this up.
The press conference was a rather interesting in four ways. First, he accepted full responsibility for his actions and did not try to shift the blame to anyone or anything else. Second, he noted that his actions were due to a weakness and flaw in his character. Third, he answered question for about thirty minutes, visibly taking a beating. Fourth, his wife was not present-which is something rather unusual when an American politician has been caught in a scandal involving a sexual element. Seeing this conference started me thinking about tragedy in the Aristotelian sense.
Briefly put, a tragedy has two main aspects: the nature of the action and the nature of the main agent. In terms of the action, a person has to go from happiness to misery via a mistake on his part. Second, the agent needs to be good, but not overly so. The fact that the downfall was due to an error on the person’s part enables people to feel fear-“there, but for the grace of God, go I.” The fact that the person is basically decent enables people to feel pity. After all, when bad things happen to wicked people, we are not generally inclined to feel for them. However, when bad things happen to decent people, this tends to elicit feelings of pity.
In Weiner’s case, he clearly has gone from happiness to misery. He has been revealed as a liar and his wife is certainly not happy with him. His chances of being re-elected have been diminished. This misery is, of course, self inflicted and the result of poor chocies: though he is married he was inappropriately involved via Twitter and Facebook with women and when he accidentally exposed himself, he chose to lie about it.
Looking at things honestly, I think that most of us can easily imagine being in a situation somewhat like Weiner’s. After all, social media makes it very easy to communicate with people and engage in what might begin as harmless friend making that devolves into flirting. As Weiner himself pointed out, social media is not to blame for our failings-but it does provide a rather slippery social slope. Social media also provides an instantaneous way to be stupid, thus sometimes shorting out one’s better judgment. Email and blog commenting also have a similar effect: it is easy to dash off a thoughtless email or comment and then realize the full extent of the stupidity when it is too late.
When people make mistakes, especially shameful mistakes, they are rarely inclined to admit to these errors. Rather, people tend to do just what Weiner did: try to conceal the error and then resort to lying. This, as Weiner knew, merely makes things worse by compounding the original error with more poor and unethical choices.
As such, it seems quite reasonable for most of us, especially us men, to think “yes, I could have been a Weiner.” For the record, I have never sent a “junk shot” via Twitter. However, I have made decisions in life I regret and hence have some sympathy for Weiner. I do, however, have far more sympathy for his wife.
What is obviously more controversial is whether he is basically a decent man who made a mistake or not. Obviously enough, Weiner is not morally outstanding. He was involved with women via social media in a way that he felt comfortable sending “junk shots.” He also lied to cover up his misdeeds. However, he does not seem to be a wicked man. Assuming he is not lying again, his relationships with the women allegedly did not go beyond the realm of social media. While this was hardly ethical, it was not wicked or evil. While his lying was also unethical, he did not violate his oath of office or break any laws. As such, the extent of his immorality was fairly minor-lies told to cover up something shameful and embarrassing. As lies go, his lies are rather low on the evil scale.Weiner also appeared (although it is hard to judge from a single press conference) to be sincerely repentant and remorseful for what he had done-especially the hurt he had inflicted on his wife.As such, Weiner does not seem to be a wicked man who was brought low by his wickedness. Rather, he seems to be a basically decent sort of person who chose poorly due to flaws in his character. As such, it seems reasonable to consider the situation as a minor tragedy-at least in Aristotle’s sense.
Naturally, if new information is forthcoming, my assessment might well change. If Weiner actually had “relationships” with one or more of the women or was faking his emotions during the press conference, then his status as a decent, but flawed, person would come under greater question.
In any case, Weiner is yet another example of why honesty is the best policy. Of course, an even better policy is to not do stupid stuff that one might feel tempted to lie about.
The next question is whether any of the girls was underage.
Weiner says that he went by their profile information and did not knowingly involve himself with any non-adults. He did acknowledge that people can fake profiles. I don’t see any evidence that he is a pedophile, though.
I really can’t help but consider the beatings Sarah Palin takes from Mike for not lying or cheating, and yet this posting is laced with appologies for Weiner.
I’m not apologizing for him. My point is that he seems to have acted from a weakness rather than a thoroughly wicked character. He acted wrongly and the apologizing is up to him.
You say he made a mistake when his history with Tweeting and Facebook clearly shows a premeditated pattern. Of course he only apologised because he was caught and he will only step down if an indictment is looming as in the case of Spitzer.
He clearly has a pattern of mistakes. Now, if it turns out that he is devoid of all positive qualities, then I will admit my own error. However, I think that he (like most of us) has a mix of good and bad qualities. On the plus side, at least he did not lie to start a war or scam people out of money.
OMG! Can you believe a sitting politician didn’t have the savy to get out that one?! All he had to do is this:
[REPORTER] “Did you twitter naughty pics to people on twitter? Maybe by accident?
[ME] “Yeah, I did, and I apologized to all the folks who got the naughty pics, that is, the all the people who were NOT supposed to get the pics. The people the pics were supposed to go to got them as well, si I simply had to explain that, while i was off work, and being naughty with someone, I hit like “SEND TO ALL” instead of “SEND TO ONLY TO CERTAIN PEOPLE”. I apologize for that, because, unexpectedly, I imagine receiving such a pic, from me no less, would be rather disturbing and for that I offer my most profound apologies. As for what I do in my own time with consenting adults, that, as you well know, is no ones’ business at all. Thankfully, I set up my twitter account so that one must be 18 or over in order to be on my list, so no minors were affronted by the images, thank God. And no laws have been broken.”
I’m not saying I could have said it that well off the top of my head, but I would have been close enough: What am I saying? I would at least say “Naughty pic? So what? What I do with consenting adults is no one’s business. I have tweeted my profound apologies to all and will be more careful next time I hit “Send”. Next question?
Weiner nicely shows the classic distinction between intelligence and wisdom. He is clearly a smart guy, but not very wise.
Trump on Weiner.
This is just too easy.
Mike on Palin:
http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/going-rogue/
“To merely say that she is famous for being famous would, however,be unfair to her. She manages to appeal to a very loud demographic in America-folks who are angry and afraid and who seem to be looking for someone like her to express their views to the world. The fact that she seems to be somewhat confused and unclear about such things as history, science and political ideology merely makes her more appealing. After all, those who find her so dear seem to be in the same boat.”
“Palin simply does not have what it takes to be a good President. I think she could probably match George W. Bush, but we certainly do not need that sort of Presidency again.”
I’d almost be embarrased for you, if I though you believed half of what you blog.
Hmmm. Let’s see if Mike can find any tragedy in Chris lee’s story. Nope, guess not.
http://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/?s=chris+lee
“The best explanations I can come up with (other than bad judgment) are that such men think that they look far better than they actually do or that they think that women will be overcome with lust when they see a Lee shot. Or both, of course.
While I am no expert on female psychology, I suspect that most woman would not be turned on by a shirtless bathroom mirror self portrait. Then again, maybe I missed out on a surefire way of getting chicks when I was single.”
What is too easy? My claims about Palin seem to be dead on and she is not making errors that bring her from happiness to misery. Rather, her errors always seem to lead to even greater rewards. As such, she is not a tragic figure.
Chris Lee also qualifies, I think, as a tragic situation. He made a bad choice, but does not seem to be a completely wicked man. Nothing I said about Lee is inconsistent with this view. In the case of Weiner, he dragged it out into several acts, thus getting me thinking about tragedy.
I don’t see any weeping over Lee’s situation.
Nor over Weiner. No tears for self-inflicted injuries. I feel some sympathy for Lee and Weiner. After all, almost any man can imagine making stupid choices involving sex. However, my full sympathy is reserved for the wives and the people who were lied to.
Now that more details have come out about Weiner, the creepier he appears. While his actions do not seem to be illegal nor in violation of the rules of Congress, the man should take seriously the calls to step down. At the very least, if he plans to stay he needs to do some serious acts of redemption. The press conference was a good start, but he has long way to go. At least Lee had the decency to step down in the face of his shame.
I’m for ousting the liars and corrupt of all parties. But I’m going to keep hammering Mike on his biases since he’s a professor and philosopher.
Muike, explain why you see things differently when looking at the actions of democrats and Republicans. What is your attachment to Democrats? And no “the party system is evil, I’m not for either party.” I think most who read your blog can see which way you lean.
Too late to reassess our expectations of politicians and philosophers?
I want my politicians to be capable— intelligent individuals of real mental substance .Let them be physically and spiritually pure. Models of rectitude and objectivity. Paragons of virtue. Find me Mr/Mrs/Ms X who meets those qualifications, and I’ll vote for him/her whatever his/her party. (Unless of course he/she disagrees with me 🙂 —or magus71 🙂 ) It’s a certainty that in this world X would likely garner only a handful of votes.
I want my philosophers to also be models of rectitude and objectivity with their feet planted on ol’ Mother Earth and their brains seeking whatever truths remain to be found in or above the clouds. But those damnable traits, rectitude and objectivity keep getting in the way. Who judges how philosophers meet those expectations and to what degree do they apply them? The magus71s of the world? The frks? the TJ Babsons?
When it comes to unethical acts involving sex, I am inclined to be a bit more harsh with Republicans. This is because the party make a point of pushing family values and what they claim is traditional morality. Hence, when they cheat, they are compounding their cheating with hypocrisy regarding their values. To use an analogy, if I was caught smoking weed, then I should be judged far more harshly because I have ranted against smoking all my adult life and have consistently said that drug use is wicked stupid.
I will admit that I generally like Democrats a bit more. They tend to be marginally more concerned with social justice and are usually more supportive of things like education. Also, Republicans seem more inclined to do things that I find to be morally problematic and harmful. For example, cutting education funding to give corporations tax breaks and imposing random drug testing on state employees. As such, I would not say that I am unfairly biased. Unless, of course, having values means that I am thus biased. In any case, I never censor comments on my site, thus allowing any bias on my part to be offset and criticized.
I appreciate the fact that you don’t censor. I just wanted to make sure the world knows your starting point. But the whole tone you take when addressing the same problems faced by both parties’ members is different. Weiner is “smart” and a “nice guy.” Palin is merely some sort of demogogue attracting those who cling to their guns, religion and hate.
I also think that you should consider that conservatism, as I understand it, is about making people stronger, not about making a support system stronger. The Army made me stronger even though it’s been hard as hell–I’ve hated some moments of it.
“He who learns must suffer
And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget
Falls drop by drop upon the heart,
And in our own despite, against our will,
Comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.” ~Aeschylus, Agamemnon.
Conservatism is not about being cruel, as you see it. I think of it as an ethos of ascetic self-improvement that can benefit the whole nation. I have no desire to see children or the elderly suffer needlessly, but only wish that people expect the best effort from themsleves and their countrymen. I could quote Kennedy here, too. When I think of Democrat rule, I imagine a whole classroom of children who ride bikes with training wheels and the teachers being patted on the back for “taking care” of the children by not letting them ride a dangerous two-wheeled bike. I think of New Orleans after Katrina and how many of the people reacted. Then I compare that to how people in Boise Idaho probably would have reacted.
The government has a specific purpose; ensuring equal outcomes to varying levels of competence and stupidity is not one of them. A society will fall ir become weakened if we reward bad behavior, and we do a lot of that. Perhaps ideaology is not in line with modern Republicans. I’m not a party loyalists. Teddy Roosevelt’s a pretty good model. The Strenuous Life is my favorite presidentlal speech:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=608
I think Palin has many positive qualities. She seems to be on the ball when it comes to making money and is either blessed with luck or has great skill in self-promotion. She is something of a demagogue. I’m fine with guns, have no problem with religion in general, although I’m not much for hate. I don’t think Palin is much of a hater, though.
I think that your characterization of the Democrats is a caricature, at least for most Democrats. Of course, there are Democrats that fit it, just as there are Republicans who match the caricatures of that party.
You are right-bad behavior is rewarded. For example, companies are bailed out, subsidized and given special treatment-even in cases in which the lot of the leadership should probably be arrested or at least fired. Government officials waste a great deal of money and pass bad laws and so on.
How about the Republicans that stand for family values and DO live up to their rhetoric? I think you hope they fail.
What’s wrong with the message of the classic conservative who lives by what he says?
The primary question is this: Will our nation do better, if it followed to a T: the message of the Democrats or the Republicans? I have to say that the Republican message sets a better goal for a stronger country. Lowering expectations is great to some people–children love it when parents expect nothing. I’d ask that Americans expect more from themselves as individuals.
The Democrats want to make the race easier by making the race shorter and ensuring that all the participants have never trained rigorously. My form of conservatism makes the race easier by asking people to rain harder and smarter. The whole nation will benefit.
I actually hope they do not fail. I’ve been through a divorce (not scandal based) and know what it is like to have things fall apart. If a Republican (or anyone) is really living up to family values, then that would be great. I’m not a selfish person and I do not delight in the misfortunes of others. Rather, I am pleased when the just do well.
Much depends on the specific values. If you mean things like loyalty, goodness, honesty, generosity, kindness and so on, then I am all for that. What do you consider the classic conservative values?
It depends on which message. For example, some Republicans seem to be pushing an agenda aimed at serving the interest of the corporations and the wealthy at the expense of the general good. That would be bad. As another example, some Democrats seem to be pushing an agenda that would do serious harm to the private sector and burden the taxpayers. I am not for that. I’m something of a moderate here: the private sector needs the freedom to succeed, but not the freedom to do whatever makes a buck no matter what. The government does need to look out for the people, but should not be a nanny.
It is important to note that there is a political spectrum, rather than a duo chromatic situation.
“When it comes to unethical acts involving sex, I am inclined to be a bit more harsh with Republicans.”
Mike, is there any area where you would tend to be harsher on Democrats?
“This is because the party make a point of pushing family values and what they claim is traditional morality.”
Mike, are you claiming that Democrats are OK with lying and unfaithfulness? If not, exactly what is the difference in values between the parties?
No, I would not claim that-at least for Democrats other than Bill Clinton. However, Republicans make a special point of being the family values/traditional values party. As such, when they violate their explicitly stated principles about family values, then it is a bit worse for them. To use an analogy, driving drunk is wrong, but a drunk driver who belongs to MADD adds to the wrongness.
“To use an analogy, driving drunk is wrong, but a drunk driver who belongs to MADD adds to the wrongness.”
So the lesson is that if you are going to fall short of your ideals, it is better to have no ideals to begin with? I’m not sure I buy that.
Also, I’m sure that Clinton and Weiner regarded themselves as ardent feminists–yet in their personal lives behaved like the stereotypical “pigs” that feminists like to decry. Why are you not offended by this hypocrisy as much as the “family values” variety?
No, the lesson is that people who profess ideals and fail to live up to them are thus a bit worse than people who simply do wrong. In general, this would not be a major increase in the wrongness.
Clinton and Weiner’s behavior is not inconsistent with certain forms of feminism. Now, if Weiner made a point of including in his publicly expressed principles that women should not be treated as sexual beings and should not be sent photos of his junk, then he could be accused of hypocrisy in this matter. He can, of course, be accused of acting wrongly regardless of what principles he may or may not have professed.
He can, of course, be taken to task for probably violating his marriage vows. I assume that they did not make an exception for this sort of behavior.
Actually, isn’t the lesson that the “family-values-party- FAILURES” seem to project closer to “If you espouse family values, it can take you a long way–even if you don’t actually practice family values. In fact, if you don’t get caught there’s no limit to what you can gain from the lie.”
The one who is NOT allied with the forces of family values doesn’t tarnish the family values cause when caught with his, her, and/or another’s pants down.
This is one of the worst things I’ve seen jounalism do. If this doesn’t say something about the corruption and lack of integrity amongst journalists, I don’t know what does.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/help-analyze-the-palin-emails/2011/06/08/AGZAaHNH_blog.html
Family values are to be lauded. And then there’s this:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/06/10/242665/rick-perry-embraces-american-family-association/
Wow, the media folks are even lazier than I had thought. Soon we’ll be doing all our own reporting and analysis. Well, time to get that studio set up for my broadcasts. I’ve got the name all set: Husky News. I’ll use Isis as the mascot. How about “Running Down the News” as a slogan? It sounds way better than “Lean Forward.” I mean, what could that even mean? I can only assume they have just stopped trying.