EDITOR OF REDSTATE
Dare I Point This Out?
This write up by Amy Davidson at the New Yorker is getting passed around as a “savvy”, “smart”, and “unconventional” take on Anthony Weiner.She posits that Anthony Weiner is not a good measurer of risk.
Measuring risk is what politicians do for a living—from when they decide to run, to voting to hire policemen or teachers or to go to war. One doesn’t want them to be completely, or even mostly cautious: politicians who never say anything that causes anyone to cringe, and never take a political risk, are useless. (That kind of risk can become routinized, of course; Ron Paul would probably make people angry if he made a safe vote.) There has to be some idiocy in idealism, as well as self-delusion. But that brand of bet is as different from what Weiner did as the gambit of putting up a Facebook page calling on people to come to Tahrir Square is different from spending hours hunched over an online-poker site. Not all hungers are alike, and courage shouldn’t be confused with mindless greed, or self-sacrifice with self-immolation, particularly because other people can easily get burned. (Did Weiner, in putting his political future in the hands of a twenty-six-year-old in Texas whom he had never met, congratulate himself for being brave?)That is why it is, sad to say, a matter of legitimate interest that Weiner’s wife was pregnant when he sent those tweets. It widens our sense of just how careless he is with the lives of others, particularly those of people who are more vulnerable than he is. That is good to know about a politician; it is distinct from the question of whether someone who lies to his wife will lie to the public and, I’d argue, is more important.
That sounds smart, savvy, and certainly gives a new angle to the whole sordid mess. But dare I point out that Weiner’s measures of risk in his political career lined up perfectly with the progressive leftists Amy Davidson more likely than not agrees with?Look at his voting record. Look at the causes he publicly championed. If you think he measures risk poorly and those things he pursues in his office, other than women, line up so perfectly with the progressive left, if we expand this risk theory further, what does it say about the left?
The children who matter most to Weiner’s future may be the ones who are being born in other families, or who aren’t being born, at least not in this state.
Yeah, I’d agree with that, but i suspect Ms. Davidson would be perfectly pleased with the policies Mr. Weiner would have the most effect on in the name of the children.I think Anthony Weiner is a terrible judge of risk. But extrapolating that to his job only makes sense if we’re going to point out that his calculations of risk vs. reward on the job and in the causes he chooses lines up pretty perfectly with the left.