And while it is supremely easy to pick on this guy, and his particular actions, I'd rather focus today on a couple broad principles that I gleaned from his press conference.
First, he alluded to this activity as a personal failing that he had paused on occasion to consider the wrongness of, but proceeded anyway. I found that remark absolutely fascinating, and filled with information about the nature of this guy's problem.
Personal failings: we all have them. Weaknesses, I mean. If we're all really honest with ourselves, we all have things about our personalities, attitudes, habits, etc. that we would rather no one else find out about. Some of these are different in levels of social acceptability and severity. Pride, exaggerating (i.e. lying), lust, greed, laziness, gambling, etc.
If we're "good", we're working on those weaknesses. Actively resisting them, and perhaps even taking steps to turn them into strengths. We may even enlist the assistance of close ones to help us work on them. If we're "not good", we give into them. Actively working to improve our weaknesses is a purposeful decision, and often a difficult task. Giving into them, in my observation, is rarely a conscious decision, but rather the result of a series of seemingly insignificant compromises, rationalizations, and deferments of serious soul searching. In the short run, improving ourselves is hard, deferring or giving in is easy. The long run results, however, are always brutally obvious.
We are a habit forming people. If we indulge in good behavior, we tend to continue that pattern. If we get bumped off that track and indulge in our vices and weaknesses, we tend to continue that pattern. The difference between the two is that, again, the former is harder in the short term, whereas the latter is easier. So, taking the path of least resistance leads us to bad habits which, of course, lead to long term habits (a.k.a. addictions; be they habitual, substance, or psychological addictions) and brutal consequences.
So, on the level of a guy indulging in a behavior that he knew was not good, and getting caught in doing it, lying about it, humiliating himself, his wife, kids, family, friends, staff, etc.; on that level, as I watched him bear it all out in the public square, I felt bad for the guy. Everything he said about his sense of shame, his panic upon discovering that he had been discovered - that all struck me as brutally honest, painful, and true.
However...
Second, the statement: "I take full responsibility for my actions" followed on in the next breath by "I will not resign." What does taking responsibility for one's actions really mean?
I learned it in the simplest of terms when I was a kid: if I stole a candy bar, I'd pay for it. If I messed up the living room, I'd have to clean it up. There are a couple steps in these examples: confession and restitution. Paying back the price of the candy bar, and cleaning up the room. Those forms of restitution are fairly obvious.
But what about those actions that damage things less tangible, like the trust between a husband and a wife, an elected official and his/her voters? How does one assign a value of restitution to those intangible damages? That's a little more challenging, I think.
I think there are two ways of approaching this one. The questions one has to ask are: "Am I sorry I got caught?" or "Am I sorry I did what I did?" If you're sorry you did what you did, the self-imposed price of restitution is high. There's no easy away around it, nor does the offender look for one. They seek out all the possible ways in which to take on the consequences, and they take them on to an almost self-sacrificing degree.
To the person who got caught, and is sorry they got caught, when there's no other way around it, they'll admit it, apologize for it, then try to walk away from it all hoping there are no real consequences other than embarrassment.
Congressman Weiner did the latter, and I feel sorry for him and especially his wife and kids. Because the degree to which he is truly sorry for his actions (as opposed to getting caught), he will want to pay the price of restitution. Reconciling with his voters - whom he lied to - means resigning, in my mind. More importantly, part of the price of restitution is taking his weakness on, head on. He punted on accepting the consequences of lying to his voters, so I think he'll punt on dealing with this weakness. Which means he'll still indulge (perhaps in other forms), and he and his family will suffer as a result.
That's a shame.
You are such a wonderful writer. Am I ever going to see you running in any political office? If you can speak like you write, you would be unbeatable!
ReplyDelete