Revisiting the Question

Do you find that your brain takes a vacation at times? Mine does. I offer as a recent example the confusion I created in my March 11 blog ("Sex or Money--Which More Corrupting?"). It was less clear in intent and meaning than I like. So let me try again:

First, you should know I come to any high-profile political/sexual scandal with one question more than any other: who wants this person mortally wounded and why? As an admitted "conspiracy" buff, I nonetheless usually find the answer lies somewhere in the nexus between "self" and "the other guy."

In the Spitzer case, "self" had much to prove, apparently. Otherwise, all the marks of accomplishment were there: big career, nice family, plenty of cash. So what's lacking? A guy's belief in his own sexual prowess? It's tempting to think that must be it when the admitted-to facts are examined.

But wait...there's more.

Who's "the other guy" who would mortally wound an Eliot Spitzer type? To my mind, the answer is whoever doesn't like what he's done to big businesses and those who support them, i.e., corporate wrongdoers, their investors, and public officials who side with the company against government in just about any matter.

So what of the earlier blog? In a way, I was silently harking to a book I read in the 1970's. It purported to explain the differences between Republicans and Democrats. I've forgotten all but this key, sounds-about-right description: Democrats hate Republicans for sins involving money, and Republicans hate Democrats for sins involving sex. Seems to me both parties continue to behave in that fashion.