Weiner: The importance of knowing about sexting

According to the Atlantic’s Megan McArdle, the Anthony Weiner affair (background in linked posts here and below——scroll down) is indeed worthy of news coverage. It’s a matter of justice: “the “not our business” school of sex scandal seems to function as a get-out-of-monogamy-free card for powerful men who want to behave badly.” And character is important: If he cussed out little old ladies or swindled them out of their life savings (even legally) wouldn’t we want to know? If he’d been sending pictures to under-age girls, shouldn’t we know?
Of course, Weiner hasn’t been doing any of those things (I agree that hitting on underage girls or ripping off people would indeed be newsworthy), but infidelity is just as important: “I don’t think that the good faith proponents of the argument for ignoring sex scandals actually believe that poor impulse control, accomplished lying, and a willingness to break one’s most solemn promises in pursuit of a covert thrill have absolutely no bearing on job performance.”
Actually yes, I would argue that. The way someone behaves in their private life does not necessarily track with their personal conduct. If it were, then we’d see the evidence: Every wife beater, serial adulterer and child abuser would reveal themselves in their public actions——and that’s just not true. That’s one reason people get away with it so long.
Likewise, the fact Newt Gingrich has a big account at Tiffany’s is not——contrary to much tut-tutting in the media——proof that he’s not capable of making sound decisions on the federal budget.
I agree character’s important. Even if you have great policies and an understanding of how government works, your success in office may hinge on your willingness to negotiate or compromise, or not to compromise; whether you want to look good for the media or actually accomplish something.
But in practice, character coverage leads not to deep insight but the “Al Gore problem” where the media use trivia of clothes and conduct to reveal personality traits only they can see (the Gingrich case being one example).
And those traits are invariably the ones the press has already decided on. John Kerry’s marriage to a wealthy woman who helped his political career got a lot more attention than John McCain’s marriage to a wealthy woman who helped his political career because the media cast Kerry as an ambitious elitist while McCain was the war hero and utterly honorable political maverick (no disrespect intended to McCain’s war record, but his political record is a lot less commendable).
In the case of something like the Weiner photos, it’s even better because they can gossips about S-E-X instead of boring matters like Medicare funding. And depending on the politician in question, they can make as big a fuss as they want, or drop it (the Daily Howler compares pundit Chris Matthews’ takes on Weiner and scandal plagued David Vitter here).
If the press do want to analyze personality, why not do it with something more substantial, as Glenn Greenwald points out. They certainly didn’t raise this much hue-and-cry over Bush admitting that he’d personally sanctioned torture. Or what it says about Obama that he claims the authority to assassinate American citizens (targeting one radical American cleric who advocates attacks on us).
Or treating Paul Ryan’s proposing a plan that would make it impossible for many people on Medicaid to pay for treatment as a test of character. Or the insistence of wealthy politicians on demanding tax cuts that benefit wealthy people.
Actually I suspect using these as starting points for analysis would be disastrous——but they’d be more relevant to what goes on in Washington than anything Weiner’s being raked over the coals for.