If you ever watched wrestling in the mid-to-late 90’s then you might have heard of Dwayne Johnson, The Rock. He was a bit of a dink, kind of full of himself, but a really good wrestler. He has this catch phrase, an insult really, he’d use the term “jambroni”. If you’re a moron, according to The Rock, you’re a “jambroni”—and who better to tell you you’re a moron than a professional wrestler.
That said, whenever the name “Adam Giambrone” came up in the news, the first thing I thought of was The Rock. And the name came up often: as the head of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) that tends to happen. But this week Giambrone’s been in the news for another reason, for being a “jambroni,” as The Rock would say.
Only nine days into his bid to become the next mayor of Toronto, The Star broke the news of an affair. Giambrone conceded that it was true, he’d cheated on his live-in girlfriend with another woman, and shut down his campaign for the mayor’s office. An admittedly short campaign.
Over the past couple of days, opinions have been swirling. I was OK to sit back and listen, to draw the obvious parallels to Tiger Woods (where’d he go?), until I heard a comment from Current Toronto Mayor David Miller.
Miller became by quoting Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who said that “government has no business in the bedrooms of our nation.” “I think, frankly,” said Miller, “there are areas where the media have no business as well.” And then I became out-raged.
Let’s put aside the fact that Miller is completely misappropriating a quotation from Trudeau, let’s not even touch that, his perception that the media has no business in the personal lives of public figures is abominable.
I’m a teacher, and one thing that I teach my kids every day is that integrity and honesty are important, admirable and necessary qualities to be a good person and to be a leader. Let me underscore that: we’re teaching our children that these are important qualities to have. Now consider our jambroni. A public figure, in a very important office, making a very huge mistake but, according to Miller, we have no business talking about it, the media has no business proding around there and, even more, Miller says he won’t ask him to resign. What kind of example does that set?
If you’re a public figure, then your private life matters. If you’re running a city, a province, a country, then mistakes you make in the privacy of your home—or the home of your 18-year old mistress—are the business of the city, the province, the country. You cannot cordon off parts of your life or your personality: if you cheat in your relationships, how can you be a credible person in your business dealings, in your professional life? It’s not possible. Your personality is that unshakeable thing.
And what example does it set? How does it even make sense? If I had a chance, I would like to ask David Miller one question. How am I supposed to go into the classroom next week and tell my students—in all truth—that integrity and honesty matter. I understand, Mayor Miller, that a personal life is a personal life but when you’re a public figure, it isn’t. Because no matter who you are, the choices you make in private, impact who you are and what you’re capable of in public. If you’re a public figure, even more so, you’re a public figure, you’re an example. Do we really want to teach our children that those kinds of behaviours are acceptable? That you can be socially dishonest and lack integrity, but no, that doesn’t translate to how you do your job. Just back-stab and cheat in your own spare time.
I see your point, but wouldn’t it have to apply to *every* civil servant, not just elected politicians? If the guy behind the counter at the MTO has an affair, should he resign because he’s a public figure that has be placed in charge of part of the provincial ministry that governs the safety of our roadways (an important public service, no?)? If he cheats in his personal life, how do we know he’s not cheating at his job?
I agree that Miller’s quotation of Trudeau was not appropriate, but I don’t agree with your overall thesis. Imagine two public figures from two different cities: Jim from Pleasantville and Bruce from Happytown. Jim and Bruce have identical service records; they cleaned up the streets in their community, they made transit more efficient, they eliminated corruption in the municipal electoral system, etc. Three years after they both retire from public life, you find out that Jim was actually a womanizer and had many extra-marital relationships. Does that somehow make Bruce a better public servant? If you say “yes”, imagine a situation where Jim was a womanizer but was never found out and carried his secret to his grave? You couldn’t possibly say “yes” in that case. It seems that knowledge of personal indistrection in the case of The Jambroni is purely accidental and not really relevant to The Jambroni’s ability to do his job (any more than it would be for the fellow at the MTO that I mentioned above). As a result, you’re right to think he’s a sleezebag, but having an affair doesn’t really disqualify you from running a transit system. Accepting kickbacks from Bombarier would disqualify you, but that’s because kickbacks create a financially corrupt conflict of interest.
Teaching our kids about honesty and integrity is a tough job to do; relying on anyone (public and private figures alike) to provide good examples for them is a dubious plan.
The Rock called people “jabroni” not “jambroni”. But I know what you mean, because whenever I hear his name, I think of “jabroni” too.
I see you point, Will, and in the example you’ve provided, I have to agree with you. Having extra-marital affairs does not automatically make you a worse public servant. I guess I was more wondering, is a situation like you described possible? Can Jim really lead such a dishonest public life and it not effect his work? I don’t believe so.
I do see what you’re saying about applying it to all civil servants and of course that becomes problematic.
It’s tricky, because of course — you’re right — that finding any public figure to demonstrate integrity and honesty is a very dangerous thing.
“Can Jim really lead such a dishonest public life and it not effect his work? I don’t believe so.”
I suppose that’s where I would disagree. It seems to me that the motivations for an extra-marital affair and the motivations for being a corrupt politician are different and not necessarily connected. After all, there was no sexual component to the Sposorship Scandal a number of years ago, and there was no (connected) corruption component to the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal in the 1990s.
Another quick analogy: I’ve been watching a documentary on Frank Lloyd Wright. It turns out that he was a massive jerk (multiple affairs, abandonment, a sense of moral superiority), but that doesn’t make his architecture any less brilliant than if he were a model husband and father.
Aha! Perhaps I may lay down an Ace? Giambrone admitted to tipping off his girlfriend-on-the-side to the recent TTC fair hike. He warned her in advance, so she could stock up on tokens before they jacked the price.
I don’t think that F.L.W’s personality made his architecture any less brilliant, but surely it affected his business relationships (as it did his personal ones).