Behind the News

Notes on a Scandal

Silda Wall Spitzer “stands by her man”

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

Every so often, we in the American public find ourselves locking our eyes, raising our voices and, in a rare spasm of unity, posing a single, searing question: What the hell was [insert powerful politician’s name here] thinking?

Ugh. The Politician Brought Down by His Sexual Impulses. The whole thing is so clichéd, it’s almost—almost—comical. Substitute “Kristen” for “Monica,” “client 9” for “wide stance,” “wire-tapped phone” for “stained dress”…and the revelation of Eliot Spitzer’s apparent involvement in a prostitution ring yesterday afternoon was straight out of the Political Scandal 101 textbook. The news conference. The apologies to the family. The apologies to the public. Overall, one massive case of déjà-screw.

L’Affaire Spitzer feels repetitive for a reason. As Libby Copeland points out in today’s Washington Post, there’s a ritualistic aspect to these events, an agreed-upon procedure of admission, contrition, and assumed redemption that characterizes, to an almost glib degree, the assumed epilogue to the epic tale that is getting caught with one’s hand inside the wrong cookie jar. And the most common feature of the Pageant of the Political Peccadillo—besides the requisite apologies and assurances of regained trust—is the wronged-but-dutiful wife, sad and stoic, who stands at her husband’s side while he plays his part, as Tammy Wynette, ostensibly, smiles upon her from the heaven of Feminine Virtue. (And if you love him, you’ll forgive him…’cause, after all, he’s just a man…)

“Pity the wife,” Reuters had it. “With her husband ensnared in a sex scandal, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s wife is living through the worst nightmare for any political spouse—the “Stand By Your Man” moment.” It continued:

Silda Wall Spitzer, the mother of the governor’s three daughters, stood by her husband’s side at a news conference on Monday where he admitted he had violated his obligations to his family and his “sense of right and wrong.”

Other outlets echoed Wynette’s warble in reporting on yesterday’s news conference:

Silda Wall Spitzer, looking drawn with her eyes downcast, stood beside her husband of 20 years and the father of their three teenage daughters. (AP)

As the public—and his fellow politicians—reacted with shock and outrage, Spitzer strode to a podium in Manhattan, his arm around his wife, Silda. Both looked deeply shaken, but Spitzer delivered his brief remarks in a crisp, steady tone as Silda stood, stone-faced, at his side. (LA Times)

With his ashen-faced wife at his side, the governor apologized and said his behavior “violates my obligation to my family and violates my or any sense of right or wrong.” (New York Times editorial)

When they aired video a few minutes later, Mr. Spitzer’s wife, Silda, stood by his side, her eyes puffy and visibly shaken….His remarks lasted roughly one minute, then Mr. Spitzer walked off with his wife, briefly putting his hand on her back, but with no other interaction. (New York Times’s City Room)

“Stood by his side.” As phrases go, it’s one of the most loaded there is; indeed, it’s hard to imagine another term whose text and subtext are both so powerful and so wildly divergent. When it comes to the rules of political pageantry, the one enforces the other: to stand next to one’s husband, sharing in the glaring spotlight of scandal, is, of course, to stand by him in the larger sense. “The post-scandal news conference is all about control,” Copeland notes. “The husband and wife must present a united front, which is why the wife has to be there.” And standing by one’s man, of course, is, culturally, consummately feminine: the sublimation of one’s sense of personal betrayal to the greater good of family unity. Family, in Silda Wall Spitzer’s case, being not only the Spitzers’ three teenage daughters, but also the public.

But the Stand-by-Your-Man approach to political scandal also smacks of the twentieth century. The whole “sublimating one’s sense of personal betrayal,” after all, doesn’t fit too well with today’s notions of feminism. It harks back, rather, to Wynette-ism. “Just once, as the husband moves up to the microphone, I’d like to see one of these wronged women just walk offstage behind him, suitcase in hand, exit stage right,” the LA Times’s Patt Morrison declared. “Why,” she asked, “do so many women suck it up and stand grimly by, like a prop for the photo op, as the hubby spills his guilty guts for the cameras?”

It’s a fair question. Especially because, among the high-profile analogues to Wall Spitzer’s situation—Wendy Vitter, Suzanne Craig, Dina McGreevey, and, of course, Hillary Clinton—each wife has, literally and figuratively, stood by her man. Each has endured what one can only assume must be among the worst moments of her life under the blaring lights and eternal-image-capturing capabilities of the media. It’s certainly valid to wonder why they do it—why they put themselves through it, and why, ultimately, they choose to weave themselves into the public context of their husbands’ disgrace. But that fair question easily ventures into the precarious terrain of unfair judgment. Here’s more from Morrison:

Today Silda Spitzer looked like she might have had a gun at her back—or she might have had one in Eliot’s back—but there she was nonetheless, ‘at his side,’ as they say. Stick with the marriage if that’s what you want, by all means—but let him twist in the wind alone.

 1  |  2 

Comments

skepticone

Tue 11 Mar 2008 06:20 PM

How do we know what the home life is that leads a man or woman to look outside the marriage? I am just wondering if the marriage bed has been violated by both people.
We automatically assume that the other person is the injured party. It just seems that these men of power don't have any sense when it comes to committing adultery. That escort must have been something else in the looks and performance categories. This is going to cost him more than the $4300. We in the United States have no idea how to do these things. We should look to the French for how to correctly let our politicians have their "dalliances".
I wonder if we will ever know the truth of this situation. The ones who really are the innocent ones in this are his daughters. I hope they read him the riot act and let him know how disappointed they are. Let's hope they don't marry anyone like "dear ole dad". My 2 cents worth.

gladmax

Tue 11 Mar 2008 11:29 PM

What goes on between Mr. and Mrs. Spitzer is, of course, up to them. However, standing by an errant spouse need not be an all-or-nothing proposition. I might expect a spouse to stand by their spouse if they got into trouble for something that didn't involve the marriage. However, since he cheated on her with another woman, I would consider that a reason to not stand by her man, and to seriously consider ending the relationship. Why should she continue to be with a man who broke his vow to her? How can she trust him again? She certainly has the skills to support herself, and may find another man she can trust. It was his own arrogance that led him to do what he did; maybe the ending of the 20-year marriage will help him understand what is really important.

xenolith

Wed 12 Mar 2008 12:46 AM

I think your article makes some excellent points. However, wouldn't the decent thing be for the one who's drawn the spotlight upon himself to insist upon standing within it alone?

I can't help but think that the spouses in these situations are often being used by their husbands as an initial stage in their campaigns to rebuild and restore their careers. Am I being too harsh? I don't mean it as a criticism of the women, but of the men, who have already wronged their families, and now are using them as props.