I am against the notion of a deal—a deal in advance that as citizens we won’t worry about a whole category of moral failing in our leaders in return for…what? Good governance? Do we get a guarantee with that? No, I’ll consider all the evidence, thank you. No deals.

In the past there were great leaders who also happened to be on the take. Perhaps they were worth it, too, but let’s take it case by case.

I wouldn’t say what Weiner did was totally private, in that it involved at least six people, and he did it in his role as a congressman. But I would say he did not misuse his office, but rather his celebrity. He did not take or offer bribes. He did not do anything involving his staff. He did not use any of his political power. It would have been just as easy for him to do the same thing as a former congressman or in any other position in which he was known to the public. I don’t believe he committed a crime, and if there is an ethics violation, I expect it to be something generic, hurting the reputation of the House.

But why should they get that deal? Nobody’s perfect, and, yes, it might behoove us to ignore an unpleasant fact from time to time–but they have to do their part, too.

I am not arguing for “anything goes.” But I do believe public figures have at least some right to privacy. I would hate for the country to have lost the contributions of Thomas Jefferson over his sex life. Or FDR. Or (as a general) Eisenhower. And I would also note that other countries are not quite so adamant as America about their politicians leading private lives above all reproach.

I am speaking in general terms, not defending Weiner. Others may not agree, but I do find what he did less reprehensible than having an adulterous affair with a staffer, or being a married man who visits prostitutes. I think he’s a piker compared to Arnold Schwarzenegger or John Edwards, both of whom betrayed their wives so seriously that I would consider them totally untrustworthy in any capacity. I think Weiner has no political future and probably ought to resign. But I think if I had a blunt conversation with him, my first question would be, “How could you be so stupid?” Whereas if I spoke to Edwards or Schwarzenegger, I would just ask, “How could you?”

Whether or not the press is too invasive nowadays is another question, and an important one, but I don’t see how we can save a Tweeting exhibitionist from himself.

In times that some look back on with nostalgia, politician’s private lives were private matters, and the press didn’t report on them. The fact of the matter is that we’re all human, and human beings sometimes do foolish things, particularly when sex is involved. So while I think Weiner is done for here, and probably rightly so, the false choice is choosing between perfect people and imperfect people. There are no perfect people, and some of the best people in public life are going to do things in their private lives that will be problematic.

I think that Milbank’s important point (if you read the column) is that senators and congressional representatives do things in their official capacities that are bad for the country. Given a choice between a politician who is going to harm the country and lead an impeccable personal life, or a politician who is going to do good for the country and have some problems in his personal life, we’d be foolish to choose the former. Starting with the Founding Fathers, American political figures have not always been angels.

This does not mean that nothing an office holder does in private can’t be held against him or her. But ultimately it is up to the voters in a case like this to decide whether they still trust someone to serve in public office who has done something objectionable in private. I would assume that Mitt Romney is a model husband, but how can anyone actually trust a guy who changes his political positions every time the wind changes direction? Politicians lie about their own public statements a lot more than they lie about their private lives. Example: The fundamentals of the American economy are strong . . . . Clarification: When I say the fundamentals of the economy are strong, I mean America has the best workers in the world. Politicians lie when everybody knows they are lying, about matters directly related to their responsibilities. It’s so commonplace we scarcely give it a second thought. We laugh at it. But when a politician lies to hide a private matter, suddenly is is too untrustworthy for public office.

I am all for the higher moral conduct standard, for the very practical reason that I do not want my represented officials leaving themselves open to blackmail.

On the more personal side: I am tired of the myth that violating the bounds of common decency is “harmless”, especially when it is coming from the same people who jam the “we are all one interconnected web and therefore you will live exactly how I tell you to live” down my throat.

I don’t want to live in a world where I am to be judged if I eat a French fry but I have no right to mind when our noble leaders cheat on and humiliate their pregnant wives.

The guys who pass the laws that we live by should be role models.

Or there’s the Milbank tangent: Let’s see; I can have a Congressman who’s a liar or a sexual exhibitionist. There’s a false choice if I’ve ever heard one. How about “a grown up”?

I had a seminary professor once who said “the problem with the notion of ‘common sense’ is that common sense is not all that common”.

QED

Defenders of those people have sometimes put the ranking in the reverse direction. The infraction was “only” about a little, personal thing like sex, and we shouldn’t presume that they would lie about big, important things like decisions made in government. But the same caveat holds that way, too. If someone will lie about a little, personal thing, he (or she) is likely also to lie about big, public things when the penalties may be much greater.