Academic

In a freakish turn, new NY Governor David Paterson and his wife held a press conference yesterday in which he admitted to having several extramarital affairs, including one with a state employee he supervised.  He also revealed that his wife had also been unfaithful.  This bizarre scene reminded me of advertisements I had seen for a new TV reality show Moment of Truth, which hooks contestants up to a lie detector machine and asks them important questions of the day such as whether they would leave their spouses for ex-lovers and whether they think their moms are fat.  Perhaps we should combine this Fox show with the presidential debates and cut right through political spin to get at the truth behind the "boxers v. briefs" questions.

Paterson's revelations do force us to examine why we are disturbed by revelations of politicians' infidelities.  Regarding Eliot Spitzer, we frame our contempt in terms of engaging in illegal activities, using state funds to engage in illicit activities, oppression of women, acting hypocritically, and even becoming vulnerable to blackmail by having secrets.  Paterson is daring us to admit that it really is the crime, not the cover-up.  If President Clinton had said, "Yes, I did have sex with that woman," would we have all gone back to our own business?  If the woman had been older and had an independent career?  More interestingly, if Paterson said that he and his wife have had affairs in the past and might in the future because they feel that monogomy is an outdated and unrealistic ideal, would we all be OK with that?  Is a disclosure regime all we really demand of our politicians now?