It turns out the Clinton-Lewinsky episode wasn’t the final chapter in the epic ofAmerican puritanism. You don’t drop 400 years of public sexual moralizing easily. Itdissipates. Eliot Spitzer and the Hooker is a postscript.

He had a “bright political future,” said a Globe and Mail editorial. It was”limitless,” said a prof. He coulda been prez. They talk as if there was nothing onthe other side of the balance. As if he risked it all, and lost it – “shattered thefoundations of his success” – for nothing or for something negligible. Yet, I’veknown Catholic priests who left their calling late in life not because they losttheir faith – they rarely had – but because they’d never kissed a woman. Othersstayed in and took up second careers as seducers. Their future wasn’t justlimitless, it was eternal, and they didn’t bandy with it lightly. It was high stakesall around.

One academic explained to The New York Times that humans do irrational things. But Idon’t see this as irrational. It’s a question of needs and aims. Human beings areremarkable animals, with a capacity for the intellectual, spiritual, moral,whatever. But they remain embodied, literally, and instinctual.

Christie Blatchford wrote this week that men like Eliot Spitzer think with their private parts. I thinkshe meant it as a putdown, but it’s an accurate enough depiction of the human state,and not just the male version. From this arise dilemmas. I mean, what does BillClinton really want: for Hillary to win, so he can continue to do great deeds; orfor her to lose, so he can finally leave the marriage and get on with what hasalways driven him?

A traditional way to deal with these dilemmas is repression, which can be a heroicresponse if it involves consciously suppressing a part of yourself for the sake ofsomething or someone. I find it less impressive when the enemy is seen to be sin,the devil etc. But then I’m not a religious person. Either way, it involves a highcost in carnage inflicted on the sense of self.

If you’re waiting for this column to get to the part where it gives the solution tothe dilemma, sorry, it’s not coming. Heavy thinkers, from Augustine to Freud, havebeen way better at expressing it than resolving it, although they’ve tried. It’s whythe realm of politics, fraught and discouraging as it is, may be less recalcitrantthan the puzzles of private existence. People I knew used to say: how can we changethe world if we can’t change ourselves? But I always thought it’s far easier tochange the world – with its impersonal institutions and its harsh realities like waror poverty – than it is to transform our natures. So just get on with it.

The problem here isn’t that there’s a mystery but that there’s none. It’s familiarand always has been. That makes it hard for the experts to sustain displays ofdetached intellectual authority. When they start expounding, they sound just likeyour Uncle Sol or your cab driver. No real evidence or argument, just windy opinion.

The ex-governor was “absurdly reckless,” wrote a Guardian columnist; he was “reallystupid,” said a New York prof. Both more or less acknowledged his dilemma but saidEliot Spitzer should’ve been sneakier or smarter. That assumes he is smart, basedprobably on being rich and “successful,” which doesn’t follow; it also assumeshumanimals can be smart when dealing with their impulses.

A Harvard academic said, “I think biologists could tell you this has something to dowith natural selection – the person who acquires power becomes the alpha male.”Biologists? Where does he go to find them – the biology bar? Nobody had an easy timeof it. Robert Fulford wrote in the National Post, “It became clear he was trying toimport into the 21st century a famous idea of the 19th century, the Great ManTheory, which holds that history is made by heroic figures.” That’s the one I thinkI heard in a taxi.

rick_salutin_small_24_1_1_1_1_0

Rick Salutin

Rick Salutin is a Canadian novelist, playwright and critic. He is a strong advocate of left wing causes and writes a regular column in the Toronto Star.