A Pilgrim’s Digression

Few things make for a greater scandal than hypocrisy. Partly, it’s because the public has a genuine appetite for seeing hypocrites brought low; partly, it’s because the media love bringing them down. Add in sex and you’ve got the makings of the archetypal political scandal; but add in gay sex and you’ve got a blockbuster of a scandal guaranteed to make people pay attention.

It’s hard to believe that Democrats would get so lucky as to have two gay sex scandals in one year, and yet Republicans have rewarded them with just that. What makes the Larry Craig story so delectable, maybe even moreso than the Mark Foley scandal that preceded it, is that Craig has been such a fierce opponent of gay rights. In fact he still opposes gay rights. Yesterday, he so adamantly denied that he was gay that one gets the impression he can imagine nothing worse than being gay.

And yet he gets caught soliciting sex in an airport bathroom, like some George Michael wannabe. I think like a lot of people, I am left wondering how a hypocrite such as Larry Craig lives with himself.

To some degree, all politicians are fakes. They clear brush on their ranch, or drive a red pickup truck, or try to speak with a southern accent when giving a speech before a southern audience; or they talk warmly about how many fond memories they have of Ashtabula, Ohio, when they are in Ashtabula. However, the Larry Craig matter goes beyond simple phoniness, which we all excuse on some level (though maybe we shouldn’t). This is a matter of belief. How do you take up a position of power as a closeted gay man and then set out to capitalize on your position by opposing issues central to gay rights?

Republicans like to brag that unlike Democrats, they don’t shift positions with the wind of public opinion. Republicans have core values (say it with a smug, self-righteous smile). Yet what core values does Larry Craig uphold? Self-loathing? Homophobia? Dishonesty?

Look, it’s easy to beat up on him. He has been the meanest of hypocrites: the kind that delights in hurting others for his own transgressions. Worse yet is that in his arrogance, he apparently thought he could get away with it. How else does one explain the stupidity of continuing to seek restroom sexual liaisons while your home state newspaper is conducting an investigation into your sexuality? Arrogant stupidity, that’s how one explains it.

And in addition, he has said some really stupid things, chief among them that he has a “wide stance” when going potty. That was his explanation for why his foot touched the police officer’s foot in the stall next to his.

Yet to my mind, this scandal is more than about beating up on one hypocrite. It is yet another chink in Republicans’ supposedly impregnable armor of moral superiority. In a way, it is a scandal of their own making, since Republicans have always wished the public to believe them to be paragons of virtue. As Jesus said of hypocrites in his time, “[they] clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.”

Democrats, at least, have never wished to be moral exemplars in the same way as Republicans. I think partly, it is a difference in values between the liberal and conservative. To make some wide and (probably) disputable generalizations, liberals tend to value cooperation, environmental concerns, and care for the poor; and liberals tend to be more lenient towards what conservatives label sexual sin. I count myself as a liberal in this regard, because I believe liberals such as myself understand that human sexuality is a complicated thing that we often have very little control over. Thus the difference in opinion regarding Bill Clinton’s improprieties.

Of course it is also a political issue. Republicans and Democrats alike tend to be more conservative than not because politically, liberalism is not a viable philosophy that will get one elected to office. Hillary Clinton cannot renounce her vote authorizing the Iraq war because to do so would appear “weak.” Republicans cannot take a more understanding, sympathetic stance towards gays because to do so would appear “weak.” Strength is the core conservative value, with Republicans and Democrats alike embracing it. Forget, for a moment, that Jesus said that the “meek” (not the strong or bullying or arrogant) shall inherit the earth.

In politics, strength implies stability, trustworthiness, and manliness (as opposed to effiminency, always associated with gayness and liberalism). In the inherently conservative political realm, sexuality is a straightforward, black and white issue. Either one is gay or straight, and being gay is aberrant. In the political realm, one can be “tolerant” of gays (like some people are tolerant of roaches or head lice, no doubt) but opposition to gay marriage is almost universal.

In the inherently conservative political realm, committing adultery and lying about it are so abhorrent as to necessitate the impeachment of a President. Not even straight folk are allowed any degree of honesty about their sexuality; it is all to be kept under wraps and even lied about, as long as one can get away with it (and sometimes even past the point where no one believes you anymore). All this hypocrisy in order to appear strong, something we know is not an inherently human trait.  We are all weak.  We all sin.

Thus Larry Craig must emphasize that he is a “rancher” from Idaho with a “wide stance” (no doubt a western thing) when he is sitting on the porcelain throne. And of course, he must frame his shame in terms of a liberal “witch hunt” to destroy his life–never mind that no liberal put him in that airport bathroom. Yet considering the party he decided to join, one can still almost sympathize with Craig’s situation.

Almost. The reason liberals and gay activists won’t support him is that he has never supported them. Craig, and Republicans in general, should expect no mercy from the bear they have baited for thirty years.