Is hypocrisy a crime?

[elfs]

There has been a lot of press recently about poor Senator Larry Craig and Representative Bob Allen, two Republicans who were recently arrested for tea-rooming^{[? - see alternative meanings]}, seeking to have sex in a public place. (Cool, the Wikipedia entry mentions Laud Humphrey's study-- I remember reading that twenty years ago-- in which he documented that half the participants in the practice were outwardly heterosexual, married men.)

The most damning charge against Craig is that he has engaged in a lifelong pursuit of hypocrisy. If hypocrisy is the worst the right can accuse Craig of having, it should read Dale Carpenter's essay, The Elephant in the Room, in which he writes:

The big, open secret in Republican politics is that everyone knows someone gay these days and very few people -- excepting some committed anti-gay activists -- really care. It's one of the things that drives religious conservatives crazy because it makes the party look like it's not really committed to traditional sexual morality.

It [the Republican Party] has steadfastly resisted efforts to ease anti-gay discrimination in public policy, even when Republican politicians know better. I can't tell you how many Republican staffers told me, for example, that their bosses privately opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment but would be voting for it anyway.

[But], to keep the talent it needs and simply to be as humane and decent as politically possible toward particular individuals, the party has come up with its own unwritten common-law code: you can be gay and work here, we don't care, but don't talk about it openly and don't do anything to make it known publicly in the sense that either the media or the party's religious base might learn of it. It's the GOP's own internal version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." ...

This [periodic spasms of scandals] doesn't happen to the Democrats because the party's public and private attitudes toward homosexuality are fully consistent: acceptance of gays.

Another place in the essay Carpenter says this behavior is not hypocrisy, but is "better described as a form of ideological schizophrenia: private acceptance welded to public rejection."

I think that's exactly right. Even more to the point, like everyone else, I have an opinion about hypocrisy.

I'm for it.

Hypocrisy: "claim, pretense, or false representation of holding beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not actually possess." (Wiktionary)

The problem with calling Craig a hypocrite is that we really cannot prove, and should not strive to prove, that he is anything more than what he tells us: we should take him at face value. When he says he believes in "public morality" and his right-wing vision of the family and all that, we should believe him. It is our duty as human beings to believe him. Until this incident, we had no reason to believe otherwise, and given that the bulk of the evidence (a lifetime of right-wing adherence) tilts in a certain direction, we should continue to believe that he is what he says he is: a right-wing idealogue who does not believe in the acceptability of public policy that recognizes an inherent and equal respect toward gays and lesbians.

Senator Larry Craig violated his own moral code. This does not mean he is insincere in espousing it. Keeping to a strict code of conduct, however arbitrary, is hard; Craig happens to hew to one that is viciously at odds with his own nature and we should forgive him for his moments when his spirit is willing but flesh is weak.

Such a struggle between his base impulses and what he sincerely believes are the requirements of his own moral system is deeply human. For all of us, how we face this struggle-- and importantly, its consequences and outcomes-- is how we judge ourselves. For people like Craig, it also brings into question his Ultimate Judgement™.

I think he's crazy, but that's because he does not live within my context: his is informed by the scribblings of semi-literate goatherders and fisherment dead for at least the past two millennia, whereas mine comes from the Enlightenment. But I think I understand what went on in Larry Craig's mind, and I don't believe his hypocrisy deserves the heated outrage we've seen.

Comments

[ibsulon.livejournal.com]

Have you noticed that the heated outrage has come from the social conservatives and most of what has come from the social liberals is amusement?

Look at the resignation calls to see who is truly outraged by this.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Regardless of where the charge is coming from or the emotion attached to it, the charge of hypocrisy is a weak one that deserves to be looked at closely.

Hypocrisy is mostly of a crime to the "authenticity" crowd, those who in their quest to "find themselves" and "throw off the chains of conformity" fail to see the organizational power of a common vision. Hypocrisy most seriously outrages those who have no high moral code themselves and who are immune to the change of hypocrisy precisely because they belong to nothing and share ideology with no one.

I prefer the minor corrosion of hypocrisy to the dissolution of decadent authenticity.

[omahas.livejournal.com]

I think that's exactly right. Even more to the point, like everyone else, I have an opinion about hypocrisy.

I'm for it.

Oh, that's very clever, Elf. So, you think it's perfectly okay to follow a different moral code in public face than in private? You think it's perfectly okay to violate that public moral code and that you should receive sympathy for not having followed it because it was "too hard" for you? It's perfectly okay for Craig to have violated the rules of his marriage because they were too hard for him, and we should all sympathize with him because such things are difficult?

Oh, poor Craig...he couldn't follow the rules he promised to his wife of remaining a heterosexual, monogamous man. We should all pity him and forgive him right now.

Oh, poor Elf...he couldn't follow the rules...oops, did I say that?

Be careful of what you speak, sir. Because sometimes your "thoughtful" words will end you up in the living room at night, and not in the bedroom.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

You have no vice, none at all? You have no bad habit of which you're not ashamed?

I don't think we should pity Craig and forgive him. Like I said, I think he's nuts, and attempting a rational dialogue with him is probably not a fruitful activity. But I do find the exceptionally heated rhetoric about hypocrisy directed at him, especially from his own party, enlightening: the charge of hypocrisy most frequently comes from those who are immune to the charge because they have no moral standards at all.

I hope this kind of crap, as Carpenter and Glen Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/28/craig/index.html) document, ends up tearing the Republican party in half. Because it needs to be wrecked for this kind of janus-faced cynicism.

If you share a common moral code with someone else-- that is, if you and he are in a community-- absolutely you should punish him for his violations of the moral code you claim to share. Whether that's by law or social approbation is determined by the breadth of the community and the severity of the violation. The point of punishment is to change someone's behavior.

But to punish someone for mere hypocrisy itself is to miss the point of punishment, because you take the least of that person's problems and elevate its seriousness beyond reason. If we say that all hypocrisy is terrible and deserving of punishment, then we take a very commonplace human failing (espousing one belief while secretly wrestling with its opposite) and raise it to terrifying levels. The consequence of that is that people give up trying to be moral; you've simply made it too difficult. You've turned this common human failing into a thoughtcrime.

[trickofthedark.livejournal.com]

to punish someone for mere hypocrisy itself

I think there's the other stuff, too. Like where he lied to the police officer and waved his being a senator around. At a certain point it passed beyond being a hypocrit and into being a slightly bad man whose behavior wasn't meeting the high expectations people have for senators. I think those high expectations are reasonable and I also think one mistake is forgivable. If he'd said 'Ooops, sorry' (acknowledging his hypocrisy and taking responsibilty for his actions) and not compounded his mere error of judgement/creepy pick up attempt with lying to an officer and being a classist bully, then I'm sure people would be willing to forgive.

The consequence of that is that people give up trying to be moral

But if people are going to give up attempting to be moral at all because they find it tough going when they get caught in a tiny sin like hypocrisy and so they give up and add on some lieing and bullying, then they deserve the rather mild punishment of being voted out of office. Or dumped. Or fired. Or shunned. Or whatever. Seriously, humans are inevitably going to fail one way or another and we all know that going in; it's the ongoing uphill attempt to be moral even when no one is watching that is the heroic part. And I'm never surprised to find that people want their politicians (and their spouses) to be the kinds of heroes who are at least making the attempt to do it right, who do a thing wrong but then at least don't go on and make it worse. I don't at all see why people who commit small sins like hypocrisy and lieing and bullying should not be then be subjected to small punishments, like having all their associates take big steps back from them while saying, 'Eeeeeew!'

Beyond our societal goals for morality is the pure practicality of enlightened self-interest. Politicians hold a special role in public life. A politician who is weak enough to lie and bully to protect themselves from a dinged reputation is a politician who is blackmailable- and therefore a danger to the people s/he represents and not worth keeping in office.

But that's just my personal opinion. Clearly people's mileage varies on this one. =)

couches...

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, I think that you would be quite just in making Elf sleep on the couch in that case. Elf would be punished _by the people he wronged_ for his actions. If I were to claim that he should be thrown bodily from the house and beaten soundly for his failure, then you could quote Macbeth at me :) I would certainly be more sympathetic to you for Elf's failure than to him...

Craig should be punished - by his wife and children (and hopefully by his internal guilt). But for the rest of us, we should stand down; we are all only human and failure is a very human trait.

[hlmt.livejournal.com]

[quote]The most damning charge against Craig is that he has engaged in a lifelong pursuit of hypocrisy.[/quote]

I think this -is- a problem, because he holds public office. Yes, humans are tormented souls in general; but even a judge recuses him/herself from a case if there is personal involvement.

One shouldn't go around using one's bully pulpit (which is taxpayer-funded) to alleviate one's sense of personal wrong-doing...

imho, anyway.

[tehrasha.livejournal.com]

All I now is, the next time I wear my iPod into a public restroom, I am going to keep my feet very, very still.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Yah, me too! Good grief.

[shaterri.livejournal.com]

I have to disagree with your bald assertion that the 'most damning' charge leveled against Craig is hypocrisy; I think that's something of a straw-man. While some people have been trying to make the case about that familiar contrast between public and private faces, the great bulk of the outrage I've seen has been not over Craig's hypocrisy but his hubris; his belief that his power grants him special privilege. The story has been as much about 'I'm a senator, what do you think of that?!' as it has been about his conduct itself, and in the end I suspect that will be the strongest factor in its undoing. We may silently, even unconsciously grant our leaders and public figures a measure of privilege, but we hate to have them remind us of it.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I think that's an excellent point. Omaha and I have been going back and forth about what we're really punishing Craig for: If it's for violating a community standard, I think that's acceptable, but it's for claiming one thing while doing another I think we're going too far in our condemnation. Yes, punish him for his crime, but not for a human failing-- and Craig has both here.

But you're probably right that having his privilege rubbed in our faces also outrages us. We're supposed to be a classless country, and Craig tried to play a class card.

[sirfox.livejournal.com]

your post brought to mind this commentary (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14060804) that i heard on NPR yesterday.

He's a human being, like the rest of us, and therefore flawed, and almost certain hypocritical to some degree, so to condemn him as a fellow human isn't really fair.

As a politician, though, i find to be a different story. The fact that this is a "gay issue" is throwing up all sorts of other emotions in the way of the real issue, and i keep trying to mentally distance myself from that. He was elected by people who supported the platform he espoused, and the self-image he presented. (for better or worse.) He didn't just rail against certain behavior, but went to great lengths to try and deny rights to an entire class of citizens, only to then be shown for a hidden member of that class... That level of cognitive dissonance brings into question what little integrity we can still manage to expect from our elected representatives.

It's unfair to the people who voted for him and supported his views, because they ended up with what's effectively a bait-and-switch. He lied to them to gain power, privilege, and influence. (and a fat paycheck) As voters, we give our politicians their jobs because we believe that they'll do their best to uphold whatever moral code they cling to.

I guess the real question is: "Is it fair to hold our politicians to a higher standard?" Some guy down the street might be a tremendous hypocrite, but he's not a member of the small crowd who make the rules we all have to live under. If i'm forced to abide by else's rules, they'd better damned well follow them, too, or the whole thing breaks down. Not to step all over another author's favorite phrase, but "privilege" means "private law" and Senator Craig's job is to make public law.

[hydrolagus.livejournal.com]

Thank you for saying what I couldn't figure out how to say.

[sirfox.livejournal.com]

Thanks, it took me all day to articulate it. I'm not sure it's properly describing my thoughts, but it's close enough to throw out there.

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

Um, we expect that level of cognitive dissonance on the part of criminal public defenders all the time. They are required to represent their client's interests to the best of their ability, regardless of how odious the client is.

Senator Craig apparently represented his constituents' ideals to their satisfaction, given how many times he has been elected to Congress in both houses from Idaho. However, it appears that he doesn't embody those ideals himself. He's probably in really serious denial. Or, maybe he's being lawyerly about it: it's what he was paid to do.

Now, certainly the gay community is going to feel betrayed ("He's gay and votes against us!"), but it's not as if that hasn't happened before.

This little bit of political theatre is really just a very safe way for the Republicans to pander to the christian right ("See? We really are smiting those wicked gays that you hate for no reason!"), since the governor of Idaho is also a Republican, and thus the appointed replacement will also be a Republican, resulting in no effective change in the balance of power in the US Senate.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that the status of a lawyer is as simple as you make out. Their duty to do their utmost for their client isn't a carte blanche.

And an elected representative has a duty to represent his constituency--his district, or ward, or whatever you choose to call it--all the people, not merely those who voted for him. And, as voters in a system of representative democracy, we elect somebody and give them the authority to use their judgement on our behalf.

But this isn't the same as making a rational choice to change his mind on some legislation. No, this guy has miosrepresented himself. He's lied about things which we might use to judge whether we can trust him. And he's exposed his lies by insanely reckless behaviour.

[fallenpegasus]

I love that icon!

[gromm.livejournal.com]

The problem with calling Craig a hypocrite is that we really cannot prove, and should not strive to prove, that he is anything more than what he tells us: we should take him at face value.
[snip]
It is our duty as human beings to believe him.

Um, excuse me? We're supposed to take a politician's word at face value? How about used car salesmen? Drug addicts? Convicted fraud artists? Do you believe in every 419 scam that lands in your inbox too?

There are some people in the world that should not be trusted. Politicians are at the *top* of that list, as far as I'm concerned, and this is a prime example of why. Republicans are openly willing to sell their principles for votes, and I doubt that any other politicians are any different.

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

And where do these boy whores ply their trade? Inquiring Nevadans want to know!

Last time I checked, all the Nevada brothels were het and exclusively employed female practitioners of that art.

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm ...

Boys' Town? Oh, wait, that's Chicago ...

Sausagefest?

Meat Rack?

The He-man Woman-haters Club?

There must be a play on "fraternity" one could use ...

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[abostick59.livejournal.com]

Growing up in a state where you can be beaten up and left for dead bound to a barbwire fence for expressing desire towards the wrong person -- Idaho is pretty close to Wyoming in this regard -- will twist a person up in some serious ways. I'm inclined to cut Larry Craig a lot of slack.

I'm a lot more pissed at his Republican colleagues. Why does Craig get the heave-ho for tea-rooming, while Vitter from Louisiana, guilty of a sex crime of similar legal weight but just happening to be heterosexual, get a slap on the wrists?

I recommend David Brock's Blinded by the Right -- when he was a Republican darling, Brock was technically out, but the contradictions of being a Republican darling and being a gay man pushed him over the edge. In the end, after years of therapy, he decided that being true to himself was more important than staying in the corridors of power.