Academic

The difference between Tiger Woods vs. Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton

By Tung Yin

So Tiger Woods cavorted with lots of women while he was married, was caught, and took a leave of absence from golf, only to emerge yesterday with a public apology that was broadcast live on TV.

Why should I care?  You could argue, with some plausibility, that he's a role model, a position that comes not because he's a superstar athlete, but because he willingly and voluntarily endorses a wide variety of products, some of which appeal to younger kids.  His inherent credibility has been damaged, and therefore the general audience (as opposed to the sponsors) might have a claim on his apologies.  I suppose, although maybe I'm just a bit cynical on this point to doubt that celebrities who endorse products are somehow role models.

In any event, Woods' extensive cheating on his wife doesn't seem to me to contradict directly anything that he's endorsing.  It's not like he's on TV advocating that we all be faithful to our spouses or that we always tell the truth to our spouses.

In other words, I really do see his cheating on Elin Nordgren as between the two of them (and, I suppose, their kids).  Because he's a celebrity and professional athlete, it's newsworthy, but I could see an argument for why it shouldn't be.

Contrast Woods' situation with those of former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer and former President Bill Clinton, both of whom also cheated on their spouses.  Both Spitzer and Clinton also tried to argue that their (mis)behaviors were purely private matters.

It's tempting to say that the difference is one between professional athletes and politicians, but I don't think that captures it.  Spitzer's replacement, David Patterson, immediately confessed to having cheated on his spouse (and vice versa) upon assuming office, but that too seemed to me to be a purely private matter.

Clinton's affairs were public matters because he chose to lie under oath when questioned about them.  That he was the head of the Executive Branch, charged with prosecuting persons who lie to federal officials and who lie under oath, meant that he arguably was putting himself above the law.  The same is true of Spitzer, whose conduct was not only criminal in violating laws against prostitution (using them, in his case), but also demonstrated a belief that he was above the law, since he had himself prosecuted prostitution rings when he was Attorney General.

Full post as published by The Yin Blog on February 20, 2010 (boomark / email).