More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Robert Brustein

GET UPDATES FROM Robert Brustein
 

Sex and the Married Man

Posted: 06/13/11 07:08 PM ET

The media furor over the uncontrollable testosterone of male political figures has been a bottomless source of recent entertainment, particularly on the comedy shows. Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Lewis Black, Jay Leno, Jimmy Fallon, David Letterman, and all the rest of the gang have been taking the opportunity to mock both the perpetrators and their persecutors, meanwhile displaying a preoccupation with male sexual organs unequaled since Aristophanes. The sexual comedy is hilarious, but one of the drawbacks of such ridicule is that we may soon have very few politicians left who are abstemious enough to get and stay elected.

Not many of us will lament the loss of Newt "Tartuffe" Gingrich's hypocritical swaggering, or the muscle flexing of Arnold "Sperminator" Schwarzenegger (Maureen Dowd's delicious term), or the sanctimonious posturing of John "I Feel Your Pain" Edwards, or the splenetic self-righteousness of Anthony "Wee Willie" Weiner, though the acts they committed were consensual, and therefore different in kind from the behavior, say, of Dominique the Dominator, who may have committed a criminal rape. But when you consider all the political careers wrecked by acts of extra-marital sex, whether Gary Hart's Bimini bimbo, or Elliott Spitzer's Washington call-girl, or Mark Sanford's Argentine amorosa, among others, you can see that being a potent male is often an obstacle to being a potent politician. Bill Clinton managed to become an exception, his hi-jinks and low-jinks with Monica Lewinsky having led to an impeachment, but not to a conviction.

One of the saddest examples of our passion for banishing erring husbands is Elliott Spitzer, whose escapades as Client-9 put a speedy end to his tenure as New York Governor. Sad because one can see by his performance as a commentator on CNN that Spitzer might eventually have become a really impressive statesman. In his media role, he has certainly been displaying an unusual range of knowledge, humanity, courtesy, courage, persistence, and modesty, qualities that are making him, in my opinion, one of the best political commentators of our time. That may not mean much when you look at what today passes for television reporting -- a combination of self-promotion, celebrity chasing, and gotcha journalism. Spitzer is occasionally forced into similar roles himself, especially during the Anthony Weiner scandal when in order to discuss the issue he was forced to concede his own failings as a faithful husband. But based purely on performance, I believe that Spitzer is potentially on a par with Walter Cronkheit, Chet Huntley, Jim Lehrer and Robert MacNeill, perhaps even the legendary Edward R. Murrow.

He reminds us of that Arcadian time when the primary function of the media was to report the news, not chase after scandal -- when people were pretty much unaware that FDR made speeches from a wheelchair, that both he and Eleanor had lovers, that JFK kept multiple mistresses (including Marilyn Monroe whom he probably shared with his brother Bobby), that Mamie was not the only love of Dwight Eisenhower. It was an age of such innocence that Jimmy Carter could lose an election, and be pilloried by the press, simply for admitting that he had lusted in his heart.

As for Elliott Spitzer, the loss to statesmanship is somewhat compensated for by his contributions to television. But CNN's continuing efforts to pair him with a conservative blonde bimbo, plus the fact that he is attracting such meager advertising (especially when compared with the endless commercials on Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room) suggests that he has not been attracting a whole lot of viewers, and low ratings do not augur well for independent journalism.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
lonesometx
Don't detain me, bro
03:02 PM on 06/16/2011
I'm a potent male and I don't cheat on my wife.

Men and women who cheat on their spouses/families are beneath contempt. They are cowards, liars and thieves. I wouldn’t trust one as far as I could throw them.

Consider this: If they are willing to cause pain and wreck the lives of those they “love” how fast would they throw you under the bus?

They are not to be trusted under any circumstances.

If you want to be married be married. If you want variety then be honest and courageous enough to get out of your marriage and limit the destruction you leave behind.
photo
Jahli
Sanity has a well known liberal bias
03:45 PM on 06/15/2011
CHEATING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POTENCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cheating has to do with lack of judgement, a sense of entitlement, and being a dirt bag.
itolduso
lateral thinker
03:21 PM on 06/14/2011
I think few Americans would demand celibacy from their politicians, and even believe that, for the most part, we don't really care if they remain faithful to their spouses......BUT.......I believe we care a great deal about their ability to remain in control of themselves, to act responsibly, to maintain their dignity, not be hypocritical, and not behave so selfishly, recklessly, and shamefully that their families, supporters, and friends get 'dragged through the mud' with them because of their carelessness or arrogance....not too much to ask.
12:18 PM on 06/14/2011
Spitzer is occasionally forced into similar roles himself, especially during the Anthony Weiner scandal when in order to discuss the issue he was forced to concede his own failings as a faithful husband. But based purely on performance, I believe that Spitzer is potentially on a par with Walter Cronkheit, Chet Huntley, Jim Lehrer and Robert MacNeill, perhaps even the legendary Edward R. Murrow.

http://www.chakanatourperu.com/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:50 PM on 06/13/2011
Yes, why can't politicians (or even celebrities) in the US be human beings? :3

The US has a strange paradox going on -- the Royalty of the US can't be sexual, but then there is this atmosphere of 'War on [insert noun]'. Things are battles. Combat. Has the US always used military metaphors?
photo
Jahli
Sanity has a well known liberal bias
03:48 PM on 06/15/2011
Royalty can be sexual... and if married they have promised to be sexual only with their spouse....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:09 PM on 06/16/2011
Jahli,

to me, what goes on with the US Royalty is their business. Which includes whatever they mean by their marriage or non-marriage. There can be "open marriages". There are marriages where there are a few people that they share themselves with. There are marriages where the two people are totally exclusive with each other. There are marriages where they allow each other to post pictures of themselves. There are marriages that change over time. Not all 'marriages' are the same, the concept is more fluid than the usage in the dictionary.