EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
Crusader types have always made me a little nervous. I can’t help but wonder where such moral energy springs from and when it’s going to get ugly. It’s like shopping with a Mountain Dew drinking kid in Nordstroms: something is going to break. So we just had yet another politician having a “coming to Jesus” moment with the press, this time in South Carolina. As Governor Sanford came clean, no one won. My heart went out to him, to his family and to the state he led. And I was a little grossed out. It’s just so disturbing to see the latest middle aged white guy, in a dark suit with a pressed white shirt, admitting to moral failure. The wife is always standing quietly in the background clinging to her purse, her lips a thin, flat line. When Democrat Bill Clinton was caught with Monica Lewinski and the infamous shiny blue dress, Republican Sanford branded Bill Clinton a “rascal” and said: “I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally [to resign]… I come from the business side,” he said. “If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.” Sigh. Big old stone, flying through the air. Impeached Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (Democrat), whose wife is now supporting the family by swallowing spiders on reality TV, was sworn into office in January of 2003. He announced, "We will meet our challenges head on and we will do it by rejecting the politics of mediocrity and corruption. You voted for change; I intend to deliver it. ... I will govern as a reformer." Hmmm. We all know how that worked out. Back in 2007, Republican Senator John Ensign declared, from his moral high ground, "There are too many people that paint with a broad brush that we're all corrupt, we're all amoral. … And having these kinds of things happen, whether it's a Republican or Democratic senator — we certainly have had plenty of Democratic scandals in the past — we need people in office who will hold themselves to a little higher standard." Nice stones, Mr. Senator! This month he admitted to having an affair with his aid, who happened to be married to a guy who was also working for Senator Ensign. Pretty slimy. This is painful no matter how we approach it. But when any politician, or a political party, plants a big, moral banner declaring their “values mandate,” we should get ready, because the stones are going to start flying and someone is going to get hurt. I’m sorry, but Republicans take special hits on this. Not because of some “liberal media bias,” but because Republican’s have tried to be the “party of values” for years. Tag lines don’t matter. The fact that their leaders have been elected on platforms espousing lofty moral values which then last about as long as the coffee at their swearing-in reception, proves their values are empty political pandering. No different from the Democrats, at some level, except the Democrats have tended to resist the temptation to pull stones from their pockets. So far. Who knows, maybe we will all learn something from this serial display of heterosexual family values. Representative Bob Inglis, a South Carolina Republican, declared today, “If it causes us to lose the stinking rot of self-righteousness and causes us to understand we are all in need of some grace, it could be a very good thing for the Republican Party.” I sure hope so. |
Comments
As I recall, Bill Clinton signed into law The Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Said Clinton at the time: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered." Since then, he has never mentioned his support of the law, or his opposition to same-sex marriage. Were I cynic, I might think that he signed that bill into law simply to remove a campaign issue for the Republicans. In doing so, he threw gays and lesbians under the bus.
Many people misuse the words "hypocrite" and "hypocrisy". The difference between hypocrisy and self-contradiction is that in the former, the transgressor stakes a position that deep down inside he or she doesn't believe in. In the case of Sanford, one doesn't get that he doesn't really believe that adultery is immoral. He just failed to live up to the virtues he espouses. It's the same with Barack Obama and smoking. Both Sanford and Obama are self-contradicting moralists, but they aren't hypocrites. Bill Clinton, on the other hand is a hypocrite for supporting a bill that he knows was wrong on a value that he doesn't really believe in. Barack Obama is a hypocrite for killing a school program, the DC Voucher Program, that he knows was helping African-Americans from families of lesser means. He is also self-contradicting, as he sends his own daughters to elite private schools.
But you're right. Republicans deserve special hits on this for failing to live up to their ideals. Merely being self-contradicting is far, far worse than being a self-contradicting hypocrite.
Ron, I'm always glad when you comment. Thanks for the thoughtful post. I was struck by what you wrote about Clinton. I looked around and found the following defense, by him:
"The defense of marriage act did nothing to change that, all it said was that [the state of] Idaho did not have to recognize a marriage sanctified in Massachusetts, and that seemed to be a reasonable compromise in the environment of the time, and its a slight rewriting of history for Melissa, whom I very much respect, to imply that somehow this was anti-gay when I had more openly gay people in my administration and did more for gay rights and tried to provide an opportunity for gays to serve in the military and did provide an opportunity for gays to serve in civilian positions involving national security that they had been previously been denied to serving in. That's a little bit of rewriting of history there."
So does one act define you, or is it the totality of your life? Maybe it is the severity of the act? As I look back at my blog, I could have just as easily taken a different approach and defended Sanford, pointing out that one bad mistake does not make him a hypocrite. But somehow what he did, and how he did it, seems defining, perhaps overwhelming, to the rest of his life. In the same way, does Bill Clinton supporting one bill overwhelm other things he has done? It's really a great issue to look at . . . . What do you think?