53406902.

doc Page 1 of 2

March 11, 2008

The Shame of Eliot Spitzer

by Joe Conason

When Eliot Spitzer stood before the stunned press

corps on Monday to make a brief apology for his
misconduct, he spoke of “real change,” of trying to
“uphold a vision of progressive politics that would
rebuild New York and create opportunity for all,” of
“ideas and the public good.” If the governor
actually believes in any of those things, he will be
the former governor by the time these words
appear in print (or as soon as he can exchange his
resignation for a favorable plea bargain, whichever
comes first).
It is painful to watch the fall of Mr. Spitzer because
the potential he represented was once so inspiring.
Blessed with a privileged upbringing, he seemed to
feel a duty to serve. Armed with the confidence of
the elite achiever, he dared to challenge the
powerful, including major business interests and
right-wing ideologues, in defense of the public
interest. Lionized by voters who sent him to Albany
with a mandate, he invited comparison with great
New Yorkers who changed the nation during the Eliot Spitzer.
past century, such as Louis D. Brandeis and the
Roosevelts, Theodore and Franklin.
Now all that is gone, with nothing left but gossip.
As Mr. Spitzer himself surely understands, this humiliating matter has little to do with
prostitution as a social and political issue, or whether consenting relationships
between adults should be criminalized.
For now, the oldest profession is illegal in New York State and in the District of
Columbia, where he evidently committed his offenses. Even if he escapes indictment,
like most “johns,” he has forfeited the confidence of the public, destroyed his upright
reputation and ruined his opportunity to govern. This betrayal was not a victimless
crime.
The circumstances of the investigation that led to Mr. Spitzer’s exposure are also
irrelevant to his fate, although how he came to the attention of federal prosecutors is
a question that should be answered more fully.
The Justice Department’s record under the Bush regime inevitably raises suspicions
now, whenever federal prosecutors investigate a Democratic official, because the
White House has so badly abused the law for political purposes. Don Siegelman, a
former Democratic governor in Alabama, was sent to prison on transparently inflated
charges, using flawed evidence, at the behest of Republicans in Birmingham and
Washington. Partisan minions in the Justice Department fired a posse of United States
attorneys precisely because they rejected that brand of political abuse.
53406902.doc Page 2 of 2

Unfortunately it is not difficult to imagine that same Justice Department targeting the
New York governor, a rising Democrat with an unlimited future, who had antagonized
Republican officeholders and donors. Press accounts of how the Spitzer investigation
began are not entirely satisfactory, either. The amounts of money he transferred do
not seem to meet the threshold for “structuring,” which is jargon for cash transfers
designed to evade taxation and other laws.
By this point, every public integrity indictment brought by the Bush Justice
Department demands to be investigated itself. But the Spitzer and Siegelman cases
are different in a crucial respect. The latter insists plausibly that he is an innocent
man who was railroaded by political enemies. The former admits that he violated the
law and the public trust.
The hard truth about Mr. Spitzer is that he began to squander his potential long
before this final episode in his career. Rather than surprise his critics by tempering
the volcanic temper and bullying style that seemed to be his worst traits, he
amplified those flaws as governor. Instead of arguing for progressive reform against
those who sought to frustrate him, he and his aides looked for devious ways to
undermine his opponents, which backfired on them.
He spent most of the first year of his term digging himself into a deep hole, failing to
achieve his goals and falling in the polls. But nobody observing his public conduct
could see that in his secret life, he had already buried his brilliant career and fine
aspirations.
The political forces celebrating that burial—from the Republican leadership in Albany
and Washington to the private dining rooms of Wall Street—are not so concerned
with public probity or personal morality. The validity of the agenda that Mr. Spitzer
articulated so ardently and persuasively is not diminished by his personal failure. He
symbolized a New York tradition emphasizing the values of fairness and opportunity,
and of effective government that stood up for the people against predators and
malefactors. We may hope that his successor will have the courage to retrieve that
fallen standard.