Any sympathy I could have had for Anthony Weiner largely evaporated when I read this article in the Times a few days ago. The article describes how Weiner “sought to transform informal online conversations about politics and partisanship into sexually charged exchanges.” One woman shared his “concern over his conservative critics,” and another “praise[d] him for taking on Republicans in Congress.” But these conversations quickly turned sexual. From the limited detail provided in this story and others, it seems like some of these exchanges developed into sexual ones through mutual consent. And if that were the case for all the exchanges, I would say that Anthony Weiner may be a bad husband, but that’s all. However, the testimony of Gennette Cordova is disturbing: “Asked if she was taken aback by his decision to send the photo [of him in his boxer briefs], she responded, ‘Oh gosh, yes.’”
For all I know, Cordova isn’t being fully honest. Maybe she sent something provocative to Weiner. Maybe she had somehow indicated her receptiveness to these sexual messages. But even if she had, and particularly if she hadn’t, I think Weiner’s behavior was disturbing.
What he seems to have done, or tried to do, is to turn political admiration into sexual admiration. In the case of Meagan Broussard, whose first contact with the congressman was the word “Hottttt,” the exchanges began with sexual admiration. But still, it looks like Weiner found women who admired him for his strident, media-savvy liberalism, and sought to make those relationships sexual. If that description is accurate, I would say that he is guilty of corruption. Let me explain.
When we talk about political corruption, we usually mean that a politician has received, in exchange for his or her political actions, rewards other than those that are sanctioned in a democracy—that is, public approval and votes. Generally these inappropriate rewards are financial. But Anthony Weiner tried to get a different sort of reward for his political behavior: sexual admiration and whatever sexual satisfaction he got out of these explicit exchanges. These are not the rewards that, in a democracy, are due to politicians who behave in ways that citizens approve of. For failing to respect that, I think Rep. Weiner deserves at least some of the condemnation that has come his way, even though his critics fail to note this aspect of his behavior.
Now, you might say, doesn’t that just mean that Weiner is guilty of using his celebrity to get sexual attention? Don’t most celebrities do that? Maybe so. But I’d say there’s a difference between political celebrity and movie-star or sports-hero celebrity. We should hold politicians to (dum dum dummm) a higher standard. The relationship between representative and represented is sacred, and only certain types of exchanges are permitted. By trading political admiration for sexual gratification, Anthony Weiner corrupted that relationship.