Admittedly, Italy’s political mess looks very discouraging. A distracting, salacious drip-drip stream of revelations has tarnished Berlusconi’s luster. International press conferences are being interrupted with embarrassing questions. So what’s the fuss all about? It’s pure Berlusconi: outrageous and flamboyant.
The PM is accused of patronizing a prostitute, Patrizia D’Addario. Even worse, she claims to have recorded the encounter. The 72-year-old media tycoon is also accused of holding lavish villa parties with models who were paid to attend; some were reportedly paid to have sex, and some were allegedly underage.
Berlusconi denies it all. He admits he had sex with D’Addario, but says it was consensual. His reason is classic Berlusconi: “…For someone who loves to conquer, the greatest joy is the conquest, so I ask, ‘If you pay, what joy can there be?’” It’s an airtight alibi.
Now let’s reflect on the fun American politics has given us over the past few months. We received a cap-and-trade bill so long no one read it, a resolution honoring Michael Jackson, continuing wars and a health care debate that, at best, has reiterated the case for an educated electorate, and, at worst, has totally sapped faith in democracy.
In counterpoint to the boring, wonky policy, there was, of course, Mark Sanford, whose Appalachian Trail hike took the South Carolina governor from the Palmetto State to the arms of a dark-eyed, dark-haired Argentine temptress. Additionally, we can’t forget adulterer John Ensign, the continuing John Edwards disaster and Client No. 9, Eliot Sptizer.
But none of these scandals ensnared the Commander-in-Chief, whether Barack Obama or George W. Bush. To find this drama, you have to go back to Bill Clinton, whose affair with Monica Lewinsky can’t match the glamour of Berlusconi. Clinton had no villa and no models.
The solution to our American problem lies in Italy, but the answer is not more cheating politicians. We have our batch already. The answer lies, ironically, with Patrizia D’Addario. She recently challenged Berlusconi to a public debate “about our specific affair or more generally about relations between men and women, techniques of conquest, sex and power.” In America, this is a meaningful debate we need to have.
But first, could it happen here? The American people still hold in their hearts a Puritan discomfort with airing these topics, even if their hands hold Cosmo and Elle magazines. Ultimately, our continuing interest in these affairs, heightened by the public parade of cheaters, would probably ensure a large broadcast audience.
More important, this is a debate we need to have. For decades, powerful men like Eliot Spitzer have been using less powerful women like escort Ashley Dupre to satisfy their desires. All the while, the power scales have been out of balance. Many public women stand by men who wronged them, and few desert them (Jenny Sanford being one of those few).
Why do they stand by their men? The causes of this imbalanced male-female dynamic are complex. Because they involve emotion, they may ultimately be inscrutable to outsiders, and maybe even to the individuals in the relationship themselves. We have a tremendous capacity for self-deception.
What can be reasonably inferred is that the reasons to stay with a cheating politicians include love, power, and status. She may love the children, and therefore stay married. She may love her husband, and commit to rebuilding the marriage. She may want to save face or preserve status. She may also love power and its trappings. And every preceding “she” could be a “they.” I haven’t even mentioned security, still a concern today when women make 76 cents for every dollar a man does. The results of these imbalances, deceptions and hurts are corrosive to family lives. These recurring issues do need to be addressed, publicly.
Obviously a TV forum would not be a cure-all. Even if moderated by a competent broadcaster like Jim Lehrer or Oprah, and even featuring candid talk from the Edwardses, the Sanfords, the Spitzers and, of course, the Clintons, the forum would not work miracles.
Luckily, we don’t need it to. What we need is refreshing sunlight thrown on these problems. It’s not just the rich and powerful that have gender relations issues to work out. These issues touch millions of lives. They have real impact on people’s thoughts, attitudes and decisions. Many viewers would think about these problems in new ways, rejecting old ideas and embracing new ones, or reaffirm a reliance on tradition.
National discussions do happen. It’s why water-coolers exist. It’s why during the Reverend Jeremiah Wright episode of the 2008 presidential campaign, you could hear people talking, from Minnesota diners to Massachusetts dorm rooms. If a country distracted by a thousand channels could talk about that, then a nationally televised, star-studded forum about sex, power and gender relations could surely break through the noise.
Plus, Jim Lehrer is so smart.