As I stated yesterday, I do not think it wise for Governor Spitzer to resign effective immediately. I break with some of my liberal peers, however, in my firm belief that his resignation should be forthcoming as a necessary action. I just don’t believe the announcement should come before his attorneys speak with and possibly negotiate with the Justice Dept officials (that’s a matter of personal self-protection I’d advise to anyone, big or small), and the effective date should be set off a bit so he may continue to serve the best interests of all New Yorkers as their chief advocate in state government, completing certain tasks underway.

As the NY Times’ article notes:

The state faces a $4.4 billion deficit and is weeks away from its deadline to complete a new budget.

At the very least, the governor should shepherd a solution to that budget dilemma, and perhaps till the state legislature recesses on June 23rd. As a practical matter, that would give the Lieutenant Governor the spring to assemble his replacement team and the summer to prepare an aggressive agenda for the duration of the term he’ll inherit.

Political pragmatism also extends to several key considerations: the NY legislature is on the verge of gaining a Democratic majority in its Senate, at a national level squeaky-cleanness enhances Democratic chances, and Spitzer’s endorsed presidential candidate - Hillary Clinton - gains nothing from a sex scandal involving a high-profile supporter.

I should note, at the outset, that, with friends and relatives employed within the NY state justice system (judges, prosecutors, etc), I’ve heard opinions that Spitzer will hang on and somehow survive this. Yet, quite simply, I don’t think the central issue here is Spitzer’s political fortunes. At best, by hanging on to complete the budget process, he can walk away with the knowledge available to all that he completed tasks underway as a responsible public servant should so long as he has the voice and confidence to do that effectively - which I believe he can do.

So why do I consider the resignation necessary at all? The politically pragmatic considerations are one factor. Weighing against it, there’s the outstanding fight - from a libertarian standpoint - to put the whole ‘morals’ question up for a determined fight to end victimless criminal prosecutions. Though I hardly think all prostitution can be classified as victimless, the early indications suggest this particular ring was not involved in slavery, utilizing drug addicts, supervised by abusive pimps, practicing unsafe sex that could spread communicable diseases or otherwise exploiting people of marginal means.

There’s also outstanding questions that do deserve further investigation by journalists: who were clients 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 and why weren’t they outed? Has the US Attorney’s offices become so politicized that this is its proper role and strictly biased result? Is this the ultimate retribution by monied interests for Spitzer’s list of successfully prosecuted Wall Street con men?

I would welcome the truth and I strongly believe the morals question requires address and a public consensus that our justice system should not squander its resources delving into the sex lives of mutually consenting adults where no other crimes are present beyond concealment.

However, Spitzer is not the right guy for that fight, it’s not the right time for that fight and most importantly, there are other factors Spitzer must consider and the personal and familial ones almost always should outweigh all the other factors.

Consider:

1) Though the most damaging potential law violation is the charge of ’structuring’ as this other NY Times article describes, is just another sexual liaison concealment, Spitzer’s attorneys must be able to advise their client to proceed in a manner that best protects him. If that best outcome includes resignation, so be it.

2) The proper and most effective way an elected official should challenge existing laws is before he or she has been implicated in breaking them. I’ve observed other elected DAs do just that. One that comes to mind was Corvallis, Oregon DA Chris Van Dyke (son of Dick) who announced he would not prosecute shoplifters or potheads, but would apply his limited resources to crimes of violence, with extra emphasis on rape.

3) As a public crusader against crimes committed by the rich and powerful, one should take a personal pledge to adhere to all laws after becoming rich and powerful, as a standard that allows no compromise. As Spitzer prosecuted others for running prostitution rings, that’s especially clear; as there’s no way to avoid the obvious hypocrisy were he to try and hold onto his office.

4) While social and sexual mores do not always get the proper, open-minded discussion and debate within families that can enhance a greater understanding of human sexuality, situations like this often force those discussions and fresh considerations to take place. But they do so when emotions run high, when family members are weighing ‘what does love mean? Commitment? Betrayal?’ There is no one-size-fits-all for every family. Sometimes a situation compels a married couple to work to strengthen their own relationship. Sometimes, as a parent, it’s an important lesson to convey to your children that bad choices carry consequences. I cannot guess - nor is it my right to do so - how the Spitzer family will ultimately resolve these issues. But Spitzer has already signaled that his first goal will be to rebuild and regain the trust of his family. That suggests that he already feels he betrayed that trust, and I certainly encourage families to take the healthy - if sometimes painful - path that enhances trust, love, and stability.

5) I also feel that most US children are inundated with sexual imagery from a very young age and the majority still face adolescence with a great deal of uncertainty and natural curiousity about sexuality and what is ‘normal’ and ‘healthy.’ It’s not so easy to define all that with the catch-alls of ’safe sexual practices’ and ‘mutually consenting adults’. They do look to adults as role models, especially those with any kind of authority over their lives. Thus parents, teachers, public safety officials, employers and yes, even elected officials do serve as role models when they agree to take on those roles.

Some may insist that celebrities and sports stars also do, too, but they can loosely be grouped as entertainers, as they play no role of authority, despite their obvious influence on their fans and admirers. So it is reasonable to ask and expect our elected officials to serve as role models, even in their private lives. At a minimum, discretion is to be sought. And when that’s compromised, it’s important that children either see that the indiscretion caused some harm to the family and for the public figure to express remorse and apologize. In the rare case when an open marriage actually does exist, that public figure should also make it clear that his or her private life is to be respected. And in that case, the lack of remorse and family apology should suffice as notice that no one was betrayed at all. Either way, the kids will get the message that marriage is a commitment to be respected, though its partners may choose the parameters and definitions of what they’re committing to.

While Spitzer certainly should consider all of these factors in reaching his decision and how best to respond to these considerations, I feel factors #2 and #3, coupled with the political considerations, will ultimately require his resignation, even if the other factors don’t.

In the meantime, I consider it perfectly appropriate for all citizens to push for an end to investigations and prosecutions like these, as a matter of public policy, because what happened to Spitzer should not have been a crime in the first place and we should work to keep government out of people’s private lives where no abuse or public harm is occurring. The ’structuring’ that first drew the IRS eyes to the matter would not have occurred were the actions of the consenting adult service providers not illegal.

That is properly the fight of all who cherish freedom, but it’s a difficult fight to pursue for any who are already publicly compromised. Spitzer is and his best course, in my view, is to define his own terms and timing, but to yield his public office. Afterward, it would be fine to see him seek public office again in the future, so voters could get the chance to determine whether he can resume his representation of their interests.