Sexless Sex Scandals & Liberal Moralizing
Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig has resigned.
With a h/t to Instapundit, I found these comments from Eric Scheie on the Craig story to be most amusing:
I realize that there are things missing in this analysis, and of course the biggest problem is that it does not involve actual sex, but the perception of sex. In that respect, Craig’s “sex” is like the nonexistent sex of Mark Foley, whose crime was not sex, but sending suggestive emails. (Or Vitter, whose name was found in an address book.)…
What is it with these guys that they can’t even run a proper sex scandal?
Who ever heard of sex scandals without sex?
At least when the Democrats have a sex scandal, it involves real, honest to goodness sex. Yeah, I know, Bill Clinton said the sex wasn’t sex. But let’s face it, it was. Had Bill tapped Monica’s foot, the most he’d have been accused of was playing footsie, and there’d have been little to no outcry, much less an impeachment. And as Matthew Sheffield makes clear, the double standard is appalling; Democrats keep their jobs after drowning women in cars or keeping male brothels, while Republicans are hounded out of office for sex scandals without even the component of sex.
If I were the American people, I’d be totally sick of sexless Republican sex scandals by now.
The GOP needs to shape up.
Jonah Goldberg offers both some light-hearted and more serious reflections on this news and the surrounding debate:
In the wake of the Larry Craig “Bathroomgate” story, some intrepid free-market-oriented bloggers came up with a novel solution to the problem of closeted gay conservatives indulging their carnal desires on the side. Gay-sex offsets.
The same market-based approach is used by environmentally crapulent liberal celebrities all the time. They use private jets, drive around with big entourages and own numerous energy-sucking homes. To make amends, they purchase an indulgence in the form of “carbon offsets” — a contract whereby the equivalent amount of greenhouse gases are soaked up by newly planted trees and the like.
So why not do the same thing with gay sex? Cruise the bus station, cut a check to the heterosexuality-promoting organization of your choice.
Since most on the Left think Craig’s alleged sexual liaisons are perfectly benign, they shouldn’t object. “Who are we to judge?” and all that. Rather, the Left claims it hates Craig’s hypocrisy, not his behavior.
From Rush Limbaugh’s drug use to Bill Bennett’s gambling to the long list of Republican politicians who’ve thrown a few earmarks and riders into their marriage vows, the Left has chosen to denounce the perceived hypocrisy rather than the behavior. The indictment sometimes loses its punch in the details. Bennett never inveighed against gambling, for example.
But that misses the point. The Left claims to hate “moralizers.” So any failure to live like Jesus while telling others to follow his example is an outrage, even the defining challenge of our lives…
One solution to the hypocrisy epidemic, of course, is to have no morals at all. You can’t violate your principles if you don’t have any. Another solution: simply define down your principles until they are conveniently consistent with your preferred lifestyle…
But the Left has another solution. Under its system, you can still be a moralizer. You can still tell people what to do and how to live. And, best of all, you can still fall short of your ideals personally while guiltlessly trying to use government to impose your moral vision on others. All you have to do is become a liberal moralizer.
Once you become a liberal, you can wax eloquent on the glories of the public schools while sending your kids to private school. You can wax prolix about the greedy rich while making a fortune on the side. You can even use the government to impose your values willy-nilly, from racial quotas and confiscatory tax rates to draconian environmental policies and sex-ed for grade-schoolers — all of which will be paid for in part by people who disagree with you.
You don’t even have to give up traditional religion, so long as you now define the teachings of your faith in perfect compliance with the Democratic platform.
Why, just look at John Kerry. In 2004, the Democratic nominee repeatedly insisted that his religious faith is “why I fight against poverty. That’s why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That’s why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.” Great! But when it comes to, say, abortion, consulting one’s faith is a no-no: “What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn’t share that article of faith.”
So I guess under a Kerry administration, America’s civil rights and economic and environmental policies would all be voluntary?
The point is simply this: Hypocrisy is bad, sure. But it’s a human failing that should fall upon the individual in question. What the left wants to do is use hypocrisy as a cudgel to declare that conservative ideals are categorically illegitimate because some conservatives fail to live up to them. But we all fail to live up to our ideals sometimes (just ask John Edwards, who wants get rid of everyone’s SUV, save the one in his driveway). That’s sort of why we call them “ideals.” Most of us don’t fall as far as Larry Craig seems to have fallen, but that’s not necessarily an indictment of his arguments, it’s an indictment of the man.
You’d think Sen. Craig would have filled his lust for male genitalia at the 2007 Bohemian Grove pickle bobbing contest. But noooooooooo.
Maybe its because Republicans are just not worth f^C7ing with that they have these sexless scandals,although I would f^c7 one if given the chance as they always seem to be screwing me out of my tax money while giving the upper 1% a BIG break and forcing all my expenses up while bankrupting America’s and my children’s future. Its not mismanagement, its pure greed. Democracy is no match for capitalism when $$$ buys the politician’s jobs.
According to OpenSecrets.com, here are your top-10 campaign cash donors since 1989…
Next theory, please.
And here in Rhode Island, Rasputin, no question – it’s the public labor unions who are taking all of your state and local taxes. (… oh, except the portion given at the behest of your Democrats to questionable social programs.)
Er, actually the 60-60% with the Goldman-Sachs item is a typo. What isn’t a typo is the fact GS gives mostly to Democrats.
Nice post Andrew, helping to prove my point. Both parties are for sale. However I do have to question the presentation of the data. These may well be the top donors since 1989, but be aware that the total corporate donations are about 10 TIMES the donations of combined union donations (Hightower Lowdowner).
In fact corporations spent over $160 million on GW’s coronation, never mind the election itself.
The solution is 100% public financing of elections, and I say limit the amounts as a test to see who can run the best campaign with a reasonable amount of funds. Make them show us what they can do, not what they can say.