Hiaasen: Foley and GOP Hypocrites
Jason Kuznicki on Oct 10th 2006 06:49 pm |
I’ve lately taken a shine to Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen. Here’s what he had to say about the Foley scandal:
This, after all, is the party that has declared itself morally superior; the party that lectures all of us about conservative family values; the party embraced by the Christian right as God’s political arm in America.
The party that spent $47 million of taxpayer money investigating the Clintons, ultimately impeaching the president for lying about consensual sex with an adult woman who wasn’t his wife.
How much will these pious stiffs spend to ferret out the truth about one of their own who sought out underaged boys? Will they bring back Ken Starr to track down those on Capitol Hill who knew what Foley was doing?
The young page who received that request for a photo last year thought it was sick, sick, sick, sick.
But not sick enough to concern the Republican leaders who shrugged it off. They were waiting for something sicker, and now they’ve got it.
I’d only add that the Lewinsky affair was indeed improper, for two reasons: Relations between a supervisor and an employee are always morally problematic, and the President of the United States can’t afford to have secrets that might later be used for blackmail. But still, that “moral values” nonsense has finally turned on the GOP, and it’s about time that it did.
Filed in Uncategorized
“moral values” nonsense?
The contrast between Mark Foley and Bill Clinton is indeed instructive. Upon being revealed as a slimeball, Foley resigned; Republicans repudiated him. Upon being revealed as a slimeball, Clinton raged; Democrats defended him. Moral values, without scare quotes, are indeed a difference between the political parties. Though their base may be disgruntled in this particular election, Republicans haven’t lost the values voters entirely. The Democrats most likely to win the support of values voters are people like Joe Lieberman—people who are getting purged from the party.
I suspect Republicans are going to lose seats in the upcoming election, but quite a few other issues—the war in Iraq, the pork-barrel spending, immigration—are adequate to explain why they’ll lose. That liberals and libertarians think of morals so lightly shows why they’ve been losing ground in American politics for the past 30 odd years, and it shows why, this bad election notwithstanding, they’ll generally continue to lose.
Hubbard,
Upon being revealed as a slimeball, Foley resigned; Republicans repudiated him. Upon being revealed as a slimeball, Clinton raged; Democrats defended him.
Your vague use of “revealed” here is obscuring something important. What happened when Foley’s slimeball behavior was “revealed” some time ago to a number of Republican congressman who had the power and responsibility to do something about it? The fact that Foley stepped down after the scandal was revealed publically says nothing about his moral fiber or that of the Republican party… the resignation was a political imperative at that point, pure and simple. If Clinton were a congressman and had been found to have engaged in the same behavior as Foley, I think the reaction of the Democrats would have been much different than it was with Lewinsky, though I agree with Jason’s assessment of Clinton’s lack of morals in the Lewinsky case.
It may be that the moral values crowd on the right sees no important difference between predatory behavior towards minors and extramarital sexual behavior between consenting adults, and if that’s true, I’ll be glad not to be part of that crowd, and so should all adults who hold morals to be truly important.
And Republicans seem to have their fair share of immoral behavior, often unpenitent. I see no evidence that Republicans are more moral than Democrats, but I think there’s plenty of evidence that they’re more hypocritical.
Moral values, without scare quotes, are indeed a difference between the political parties.
Sorry, but I don’t see much of one. Yes, Clinton did stay in office. There’s a very serious difference of degree between what he did and what Foley did, and it’s worth noting.
Also, step outside sex-scandal mentality for a moment. Are the Republicans really the party of moral values, given the recent bribery scandals? I’m not saying that the Democrats are all that much better — they’re pretty bad too — but really. Moral value? Please. When Republicans say “moral values,” what they mean is “We get to do whatever we want, as long as we don’t get caught. Oh, and gays can’t get married.”
That’s what moral values means to the Republican political machine these days. I almost can’t believe that you’ve fallen for it.
Mark—
In the first place, I genuinely don’t think that the Republican leadership knew about the salacious instant messages. The e-mails by themselves are only weird. I think the actions of Hastert et al. are better explained by naivete than malice. You look at Republicans and see Scarlett O’hara, scheming away and demanding the worst from all she deals with; I look at them and see Melanie Wilkes, unwilling to believe that someone she trusts would behave dishonorably.
Jason—
I almost can’t believe that you’ve fallen for it.
Smug condescencion is an unlikable trait. Please try to be less personally insulting.
Now, to the meat of your argument. Perhaps a key difference between conservatives on one hand and liberals and libertarians on the other is that the former believe that moral values should be defended and the latter believe that they should be mocked. Of course some individuals, Republican and Democrat alike, are going to fall short. But Republicans believe in trying to uphold standards of decency anyway; the Democrats would rather define decency down. I think it’s a pity you’re providing them intellectual cover.
Hubbard,
You say that the Republicans are the party of moral values. What values? Also, define morals. Political morals are tricky. For example – and please notice the fact that I give an example – I believe in eliminating all but the most basic role of government, because I believe it harms the economy, the country, and individual people. Isn’t that part of a political moral code?
Now, judging by your posts, I’ll assume you mean “morality” on social issues. Ok, let’s examine Republican stances. Well, as Jason pointed out, gays can’t get married. Why? Well, no one is really sure, but it gets the fundamentalists to the ballot box. Next, we have abortion. It’s wrong. Wow, that is a powerful and nuanced moral stance. Finally, under no circumstances can you take you own life. The government owns it. Even if you’re in a vegetative state, and your next of kin wishes to take you of life support, a bunch of Republican congressmen will fly to your state to remind everyone just who is responsible for your life. If you missed it the first time, it’s the government.
What else do we have, oh yes, the non-issues. Bring back prayer in public schools, no one says Merry Christmas anymore (am I the only one who dreads this time of year because of that annual bloviating), and keep God in the pledge of allegiance.
Meanwhile this party has legalized torture, suspended habeas corpus, spied on American citizens, ignored the problems in Iraq in favor of ideology, and yes covered up the actions of a borderline pedophile. Hooray for the party of morality!
P.S: That was purposefully smug and condescending. If you like I can also be personally insulting.
Hubbard,
I look at them and see Melanie Wilkes, unwilling to believe that someone she trusts would behave dishonorably.
Riiiight, because sleazy behavior and abuse of position among politicians are completely unknown. Please.
Perhaps a key difference between conservatives on one hand and liberals and libertarians on the other is that the former believe that moral values should be defended and the latter believe that they should be mocked.
Again, you seemto be using passive voice (“should be defended”) to intentionally muddy the waters. If you mean that conservatives believe that the government should take an active role in defending “moral values” (quotes to indicate the very narrow, limited subset of religious morality concerned with personal sexual behavior), and liberals and libertarians do not, then I agree, but that’s a fairly bland point. On the other hand, if you mean that liberals and libertarians do not value and uphold moral values (without the quotes), that is absurd and insulting. For example, how then do you account for the large contingent of liberal, religious Americans (not that being religious is even a requirement for having morals)?
Hubbard, I think if you take an honest look, you will see that non-conservatives do care about standards of decency. Personally, I was repulsed by Clinton’s behavior in the Lewinsky scandal, as was everyone else I know. In fact, I think very few people of any political stripe think that cheating on your wife or exploiting an imbalance of power the way Clinton did is morally neutral. But only a few people I know believed that Clinton should lose his job over it.
If conservative politicians really wanted to uphold the moral values they thought were most important, they would practice them. Talk is cheap. I guess in the Republicans’ morally relativistic universe, it’s OK to make rules for other people that don’t apply to yourself… because, let’s face it, those rules never apply to the powerful in the same way they do to you and me, the occasional political sex scandal notwithstanding.
Truthfully, the biggest difference I see between (social) liberals and conservatives on the issue of morality is that liberals focus on their own behavior, and conservatives focus on the behavior of others, and specifically on sexual behavior. I’m not saying that there should be no such thing as public decency, but not at an undue expense of my liberty.
It seems like the conservatives always use Clinton as an example for their own polictical and moral failures. They can’t get over the fact that Ted kennedy wasn’t convicted and that’s been almost forty years. It would seem in their moral system, that forgiveness would exist and that continuing to embrace their hatred would be contrary to their values.
Hubbard –
Perhaps a key difference between conservatives on one hand and liberals and libertarians on the other is that the former believe that moral values should be defended and the latter believe that they should be mocked.
And you talk about smug condescension!
For Republicans, “moral values” is coded language: It means passing laws that harm gay people or that continue to exclude them from full participation in civic life. And it means virtually nothing else. When you tout the GOP as the party of moral values, this is what you are supporting, whether you choose to admit it or not. You are supporting, and cheering for, your own civic exclusion.
Insofar as I have mocked the moral values agenda, it is because I see it as a transparent ploy, one that is not about real moral values at all. It’s about winning votes from homophobes — and hurting my family in the process. (Did someone say “defining decency downward?”)
In any case, I don’t care for this, and because I am relatively powerless, mockery is my weapon of choice. Yes, I mock your moral values agenda, because it is neither sincere nor adhered to by its proponents. Nor is it particularly moral, but rather the opposite. I have nothing but mockery for this sort of nonsense.