Traitors, Hypocrites and “Brokeback Bathroom”
By Repair Man Jack Posted in Culture — Comments (76) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Senator Larry Craig has become our nation’s latest congressional joke. The headlines about “Craig’s List”, “His own Private Idaho”, “Brokeback Bathroom” and terror in the toilets are worth a laugh. Yet, even as funny as these headlines are at first glance, something else here doesn’t make me want to laugh.
The upshot of all this bathroom humor will ultimately be that Senator Craig was just another one of those crazy family values types that talks a good game in public and then gets freaky in the c**p stall. Postmodern “moralists” like Larry Flynt will extrapolate from there. The talking point takeaway will read that people who “preach old fashioned morality” are just hypocrites and should go put a sock in it. Because Larry Craig’s disgusting behavior gives the Penthouse Posse ammunition to impugn the decency of everyone attempting to improve the quality of America’s increasingly jaded and coarsening culture, he has become a traitor to the cause of basic decency and needs to resign or be primaried.
Senator Craig received vocal support from pro-life and pro-family groups. These people, such as The Idaho Values Alliance, have praised legislative votes taken by Larry Craig. Because Craig couldn’t rise above the absolute lowest common denominator of respectable behavior, these people now come in for grossly unjustified ridicule.
Ridicule of Larry Craig will now become a proxy for ridicule of anyone attempting to use moral suasion to improve the level of American society. Anyone seeking to stem the barbarism of moral relativity will be viewed as just another biblethumper/hypocrite. Sticking up for common decency now gets you associated with the perverted Larry Craig.
Sometimes moralists annoy me as well. This usually happens any time they accuse Little Old Me of being immoral. I understand why these types get under so many people’s skins. That doesn’t stop the quest for decent public behavior from being worthy.
Morality enforced by shame or persuasion is vastly superior to the alternative. Once all the “big-mouths” and “know-it-alls” that spout morality are demonized, once we derisively dismiss the “family values crowd” as just a bunch of hypocrites lusting for “Craig’s Crusty Crank”, we’re left with one alternative to modify the behavior of individuals in our society. That alternative is violence.
This is something to keep in mind as we snicker at the deplorable ethical example set by Senator Craig. It boils down to one fundamental question. Does Senator Craig’s status as a deeply flawed messenger imply that asking for better societal morals is flawed?
If we keep answering affirmatively to that, I want the next plane out of here. Morality does get reestablished in the end and it’s usually by the likes of Savonarola or Oliver Cromwell. I’ll take my disappointment with the hypocritical “Terror of The Toilets” over that dystopia any day.
And when (the "moralizers") get found out it delegitimizes their claims and those who agree with that person.
Why?
Ignoring for the minute that I cannot recall a "fire and brimstone" sermon in Sen. Craig's history, let me put it this way - loudmouth "moralizer" Mr. BigMouth spouts all the time that "X is wrong". He is then found out to engage in precisely "X". So, here's the question - if you agree that "X is wrong", why does it become less wrong because you've found out that Mr. BigMouth engages in said behavior?
X is either "wrong", or it's not. That someone who engages in X points-out that it's "wrong" has no bearing on the matter. Don't you think?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
"I cannot recall a "fire and brimstone" sermon in Sen. Craig's history"
There's a difference between someone like Sen. Craig getting caught like this and, say, Ted Haggard. It's the difference between Clinton and Obama's running on quasi-socialist platforms while rich, and Edwards demogoguery of the issue.
Frankly, I don't see the hypocrisy here. You can be gay and believe that employment laws shouldn't extend to gays (see Andrew Sullivan), or that hate crime laws shouldn't apply, or that marriage laws shouldn't be changed. Where it would become problematic would be if you've made a career out of railing against gays which, insofar as I can tell, Craig hasn't. I think this whole affair is sad, but it certainly doesn't (or at least shouldn't) indict any philosophy or set of political beliefs.
I am completely indifferent to Mr. Craig's antics or his politics. I was pointing to the social ramifications.
I used fire and brimstone for illustrative purposes.
I don't think that the people that think that X is wrong are going to change their opinion at all. And the people who think that X is completely fine aren't changing their opinion.
But those people out there that might think that X may or may not be wrong may be influenced.
And when they see someone who is secretly engaging in an act while publicly acting against the perceived interests of people who engage in such an act, you may begin to question the legitimacy of their position.
If an alcoholic publicly condemns booze as the drink of the devil only to go home to a bottle of Johnnie Walker, how legitimate is his position?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
>>>If an alcoholic publicly condemns booze as the drink of the devil only to go home to a bottle of Johnnie Walker, how legitimate is his position?
Knowing that alcohol caused him to lose his wife, his job and all his friends, and being able to gut out rehab are two different things. Knowing the path and walking the path are not one in the same.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
We are talking about having a public position that is contradicted by your personal actions.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
would be able to take much of a position on anything.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
But such is life in the big city.
If you publicly state that something is morally wrong I think it reasonable to believe that you don't actually engage in said act and if you are found out then you should be willing to suffer the consequences.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
almost nothing ever gets described as being morally wrong. This approach leads to anarchy; ot at least it leads to a culture where a growing number of children are standing around confused every Father's Day.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
I don't understand this. I suspect that most of our leaders are able to adhere to the majority of our agreed upon moral code.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I suspect that most of our leaders are able to adhere to the majority of our agreed upon moral code.
I'm not, and it's not just the leaders, it's everyone.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
I think you're both making valid points. No, a messenger turning out to be a hypocrite doesn't, in itself, invalidate the message. Yes, it certainly decreases his influence and perhaps that of other messengers with the same message, and that can be (CAN be, not necessarily IS in all cases) a rational response, akin to the problem we have with selective prosecution. If people are saying what everyone should be doing, but are willing to let particular people get away with violations more than others (a rough parallel to the preacher-hypocrite telling everyone else what they should do and doing the opposite himself), it raises doubts as to whether the rules being advocated are appropriate.
As a note, I personally don't care about Craig's sexuality -- I don't care if his favorite game when he was a boy in Idaho was football or "hide the potato" -- but something does strike me as not quite right when several leaders of political or social movements directly violate rules that they insist others should follow. And of course, there's the aspect of public bathroom and the fact that a stranger was involved, but I kinda think the reaction by the public would be a little different if he had met a chick somewhere and proposed she jump into a men's room for a quickie. Even that would be adultery and therefore hypocritical (I assume the guy's married -- correct me if I'm wrong), but it would be seen by many as less apalling if it had been a heterosexual proposition.
"Hide the Potato" is downright funny.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
If an alcoholic publicly condemns booze as the drink of the devil only to go home to a bottle of Johnnie Walker, how legitimate is his position?
Perfectly so. I mean, who would know better the power of "the drink of the devil" than one who is addicted? Eh?
I guess I'm not understanding why one's moral POV is damaged by their inability to live a saintly life. There ought to be some things that are wrong just because they are - regardless of an individual "moralizer's" ability to keep the the straight and narrow.
IOW, is adultery less wrong because Jimmy Bigmouth Swaggart (or whatever his name was) got caught in flagrante delicto with a girlfriend?
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
IOW, is adultery less wrong because Jimmy Bigmouth Swaggart (or whatever his name was) got caught in flagrante delicto with a girlfriend?
That would be wrong regardless. But adultery is nearly universally considered to be wrong by Americans.
The same can't be said of homosexuality or even lewd acts in public.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
First, I'm not sure I agree with your last statement. And even if I did, it doesn't truck with be because I'm not at all comfortable with a society whereby what is "right" and "wrong" sways wildly with the whims of the perceived "majority" of an electorate.
Must be the absolutist, or anti-democrat, in me.
If this warrants further discussion, we should probably take in to another stall - I mean, thread. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Not much to this whole scandal. It will be forgotten in a month except in Idaho.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Flyer, for the record, if my recollection is correct, Swaggart claimed that he never had sex with that hooker. He just, um, got in touch with himself as she danced for him in the motel room. So, if you take his word for it (and why would anyone not?), he wasn't an adulterer, but merely a jack*ff.
That last line is the funniest thing I've read all day.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
what would for once be a fresh air is a public figure stating that Johnnie Walker is the drink of the devil and the reason they know it is because Johnnie took them to the dark side.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
IMO, the people who have the most influence are the people that lead by example rather than fire and brimstone rhetoric.
That might have been true in the age before electronic media. It isn't anymore.
People who lead by example don't get television shows and fawning media interviews. My not letting my kids get "Grand Theft Auto II" (and thier utter lack of interest in buying it) didn't get the kind of airplay that releasing that absolutely reprehensible game got.
I don't think I'm _that_ old, but I clearly remember a time when being "street" wasn't considered admirable, "pimp" didn't mean anything good, and having an illegitimate child would get you banned from Hollywood, not an interview with Diane Sawyer.
______________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
My not letting my kids get "Grand Theft Auto II" (and their utter lack of interest in buying it)
The example you are setting for your children, and quite possibly, the ripple effect that has on their friends, is INDEED leading by example.
That YOU might not have as great an effect on society in general as Britney Slut, is beside the point. YOU are making a difference, as, I would hope, each of us is trying to do.
The problem with relying purely on lead-by-example is that no leader is perfect. Do you want people to give up on everything you've done because you have a failing that gets caught?
We must be able to talk about things without being perfect, or else we give up to the moral anarchy favored by the far left.
my children certainly know that I am not perfect. Yet, I have been pleasantly surprised to find that (at least two out of three) have taken the lessons I have tried to teach, to heart.
Just because there are many examples of being that aren't good examples of high moral character doesn't mean it is less influential today than it was 50 years ago.
I guess I just don't believe that telling people that X is wrong has much impact.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Seeing as how that is how many people make their living. And don't forget that it's a big part of what you must do as a parent.
The key is that while you tell people that [insert sin here] is immoral, you recognize that people are, well, people. And as People, we are imperfect and unable to always rise to the example Christ set to us.
Furthermore, when we fail to measure up against that example, we must be willing to confess our sins and accept our penance.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
Excellent point Flyerhawk. People need to lead by example and quit with their fire & brimstone morality sermons.
Allan Bartlett
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
RonPaul™ and his crusade to reduce the size of government, eliminate the IRS and eliminate US foreign policy.
Of course, he would be more of an "example" if he had actually managed - over the 20 year period he's wasted away in Congress - to convince even ONE Member of Congress that he had a plan that would work.
Allan, you're as big a loser as RonPaul™.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Are you saying, in your sixth paragraph, that the only alternative to moral persuasion is violence? Are you, in fact, advocating such action? Please correct me if I'm worng, which I hope that I am.
We've reached a point where disaproving of *anything* is considered politically incorrect. I have a niece who had a baby in April and is getting married next month. When I suggested a quick justice of the peace wedding so that the baby wouldn't be born illegitimate, rather than appeasing my neice with her "princess" wedding, my own mother reacted as if I'd suggested a public stoning.
It's a little hard to apply moral persuation when you're not allowed to make a value judgement.
_____________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
*sigh* THat was cute, but brutaly wrong.
1) Stating that there are two ways to get people to do things
a) Convince them its a good thing to do
b) Get leverage on them via a threat of violence or violence itself and make them do it.
does not equate to wanting that thing to happen.
2) If I had written ina ll seriousness "Hey, let's shove Craigs walnuts through a coffee-grinder and make him eat the paste", then I would have been advocating violence.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
If you look at the articles by the Idaho Family Values group you linked to they are pretty close to option b. One of the articles advocates strictly enforcing Idaho's statutory rape and fornication laws as a means of curbing consensual sex between teens and considers criminal enforcement of fornication laws in general to be a good thing. There isn't much difference between the threat of prison and the threat of violence.
You bring up a good point with regard to moralists. The fact is that everyone is morally imperfect in someone else's eyes. If you're looking at others and advocating that they change their culture to suit your mores where do you find the moral justification to deny someone else that right with regard to you. Unfortunately for the Republicans, the family values groups are moving towards moral absolutism and that same absolutism is scaring away moderates.
When a Larry Craig, who has been (and is still) denying allegations of being gay his entire career, is caught in a sex scandal he pushes his family values supporters further towards the fringe and marginalizes their positions in the eyes of others. As one of those others, I don't particularly care about Larry Craig's sexual antics but I am very bothered by the idea of someone with such a conflicted secret life holding political office since it indicates some serious mental problems.
I know this isn't really about Larry Craig but it does relate to the original article so don't take it as an attempt to threadjack. Or if you do, say so and I won't continue on this tack.
GMAB. "There isn't much difference between the threat of prison and the threat of violence." So you equate enforcement of laws that require a prison sentence to "violence." I suppose you think we're imposing "violence" on murderers, rapists, thieves, drug pushers, etc. when we lock them up. Or is it only "violence" when it is applied to those guilty of crimes/activities that you approve of?
The government "moralizes" constantly. Every law codifies morality in some way, shape or form. Laws dictate appropriate (moral) behavior. You liberals seem to only believe we're "moralizing" when it involves behaviors that are politically charged, such as homosexuality, sexual activity involving minors, abortion, etc. Why should Christians, Muslims, or any other group "change their culture" to suit YOUR mores? Why should WE tolerate homosexuality just because YOU say it's OK? Whose standards do we go by? "Culture" is a moving target. It is not a standard, as everyone's "culture" is different.
Go to the other thread and heed the advice to read Romans 7 (the only objective standard for morality, by the way). That Biblical chapter explains loud and clear why we have a disconnect between one's stated values and how they are carried out in practice. The Apostle Paul struggled constantly with "doing what he did not want to do". This is not hypocrisy - this is fallen man.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Prison is certainly not an attempt to reason with someone that your way is the correct way. Do you disagree that prison is violent? I absolutely agree that putting criminals in prison imposes violence on them and I don't have a problem with it. Your picking at one sentence to build a straw man.
The point of my post, picking up on the point made by the author, is that "you conservatives" are not exactly comfortable with your moral absolutist allies either. A pre-scandal Larry Craig is a lot more palatable to the general public than a group that wants to incarcerate teens for having sex.
I disagree. There may be violence that occurs IN prison, but the act of imprisoning someone for a crime is not inherently violent. It is punishment. Punishment is not intended to be pleasurable. The "threat of imprisonment" that you refer to SHOULD imply something that is considerably less comfortable than a tea party.
"We conservatives" are not comfortable with criminals, which Mr. Craig allegedly is. Anyone who solicits sex in a public place is committing a criminal act. What you apparently have missed is that "moralists" are not necessarily wrong in their positions simply because they fail to live up to the standards that they voice. Their failures do not prove those standards wrong. Take my advice and read the Romans chapter and you might better understand this concept.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I was trying to make a simple point with regard to the parent post that between "convincing them its a good thing" and violence or the threat of violence, prison is more aligned with the latter category. Maybe you understand it differently.
I never made the point that moralists are wrong because of their spokespeople. They're just plain wrong.
With regard to Larry Craig it seems unlikely that the Republican leadership was unaware of his behavior. Comfortable or not, their attitude is that its only criminal if you get caught.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
So a black person that votes against legislation supported by the NAACP is a hypocrite also? Or is he just a race traitor? Is a woman that opposes the ERA a hypocrite? Does she just hate herself or is she a traitor to her sex? Since when is having a certain attribute (race, sex, sexual preference, whatever) require you to adopt certain political positions?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
the NOW, NAACP, GLAAD, etc.
;-)
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
When you use the lefty definition of hypocrite, as you do at the end of this piece, you basically surrender the ground you argue we not give up.
from people who would be disgusted with homosexuality, and then he's in the toilet stall asking for a fix.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
Hypocrisy:In an act of hypocrisy the aim is to condemn another person or people, not to condemn an act. To preach against an act of which one is oneself guilty does not in itself constitute hypocrisy, even if one takes efforts to conceal one's behaviour. It becomes hypocrisy when it involves verbal attacks or demands of punishment against perpetrators of the act that one practices oneself.
Or this one, from Websters online: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
I would say that Sen. Craig comes closer to the official definition (Websters) than the freelance definition.
Moreover, while perhaps his conduct doesn't fall into the legalistic definition of Hypocrisy, most common folks will see it otherwise.
That said, being a hypocrite does not change the underlying wrongness of the behavior, just makes it more difficult to argue the case against such behavior to folks who are otherwise inclined to go the other way anyway and need an excuse to do so.
Did Sen. Craig ever feign to be morally perfect? If not, then there's no hypocrisy that way.
Can you show Sen. Craig applies to himself moral standards different from those he has publicly called upon others to live to? If not, then there's no hypocrisy that way.
Sen. Craig plead guilty to a crime...lewd behavior - soliciting sex from strangers in a public place.
And, for you, that's ok...because he never publicly stated "people should not solicit sex from strangers in a public place???"
He's a SENATOR!!! Our legislators are there to make laws, not break them.
...right...?
But if you read anything at all about this story, you would know what he plead guilty to. Hint: the word "lewd" is nowhere in the name of the offense.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Recently, someone (I think on Redstate) pointed out that when a CongressCritter gets caught with his/her hand in the cookie (nookie?) jar, if it's a Republican the party affiliation goes in the first paragraph, most likely in the first sentence, but for a Democrat, the affiliation is never above paragraph 5.
Guess where Craig's party affiliation was placed in the AP story on the Comcast feed? Here's hint - it starts with a "D".
________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
It was me. (shameless self-promotion!)
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I just want to say, The O'Reilly Factor folks -- guest host Michelle Malkin and guests -- just did a nice job on the Craig story. Having said that, for entirely different reasons I will O'Reilly would take more vacations and let Malkin host. And those reasons are "ooooh baby!", "yowzah!" and "hubba hubba!"
prior to that post I had never held the concepts of "No SPin ZOne" and "Budda-Bing!" in my head at the same time.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
that it's not just Sen. Craig, it's a long-standing, pervasive problem: Republic Family Values, apparently, lead to disturbing behavior at an unusually high rate, as seen here:
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
surely, someone has a list of similar perverted behavior from the dhimmies! these are all dhimmie smears!
except the convictions, and the guilty pleas.
Then Google Gerry Studds
After that, you can go search the other 49 states.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
sixty-nine Republic baby-rapers versus Gerry Studds...?
yeah, I see your point: there's bad stuff everywhere. nice job.
The man who put his boy toy in charge of Homeland Security for the State of NJ.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
that there are many people who moralize BECAUSE of their own self-perceived moral deficiencies.
And when these people get found out it delegitimizes their claims and those who agree with that person.
IMO, the people who have the most influence are the people that lead by example rather than fire and brimstone rhetoric.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy