I completely agree with Jonah Goldberg that it's a cheap and unpersuasive argument that Larry Craig is a hypocrite for voting against gay marriage while cruising for sex in men's rooms. What does one have to do with the other? I would certainly hope that gay marriage advocates disapprove of dirty old men (young ones too) prowling in public bathrooms for sex. Strictly speaking, wouldn't Craig be a hypocrite if instead of proposing sex with Officer Mancuso, he'd proposed marriage? Here's Jonah:
Moreover, aren’t there worse and more accurate labels for someone in Craig’s situation? Self-hater, fool, sex-addict, adulterer, pervert, sinner: all of these come to mind. But the problem for the left is that hypocrisy is the politically useful charge while archaic concerns like sin, perversion or adultery are at minimum problematic. The left doesn’t – as a matter of passion or strong principle – really mind gay cruising, they mind people who really disapprove of gay cruising. If Craig’s personal conduct really offended liberals, Jim McGreevey – a seedier man personally than Craig by any conventional standard – wouldn’t be a hero. But, no, it’s Craig’s political conduct, not his personal conduct, that offends the left. And so, they take up the well-worn hypocrisy cudgel not to condemn cruising bathrooms, but for voting against gay marriage.
UPDATE: I know as a political matter, it's a distinction without a difference, but I still can't quite shake the idea that the word "hypocrite" doesn't accurately describe what Larry Craig is. I take it for granted that he's a closeted homosexual in deep denial. Does his voting against various gay-rights measures necessarily make him a hypocrite? Suppose he sincerely believes that homosexuality is immoral, and has been fighting for years to conquer his desires. And suppose that he fails from time to time. I have a closeted friend in Courage who fits this profile. If he were a legislator, would he be a hypocrite for opposing gay rights legislation? Or would he be a hypocrite of another sort for voting for it, even though he believed homosexuality to be intrinsically immoral? This is complicated.
I think the way you see this depends on how you see homosexuality. Is it morally positive or at least morally neutral, and an inherent and ineradicable part of one's identity that must in no case be resisted or denied, only accepted? Or is it a morally negative condition that may be ingrained psychologically or biologically, but which has to be controlled and suppressed? If the latter, then Larry Craig might be nothing more than a poor, weak sinner (as well as a lawbreaker, which is why I think he should resign). It's hard to know for sure absent deeper knowledge of his own thoughts and motivations, which we're not likely to have.
Look, I don't have any emotional investment in whether or not Larry Craig is ultimately a hypocrite. I think he's a messed-up man, and that he shouldn't be senator. But I do think the word "hypocrite" is tossed around rather too easily these days, and it's worth stopping to think what we really mean by it when we use it.
Thought experiment: What if Larry Craig had advocated strong laws against drunk driving, but was secretly an alcoholic who every now and then got behind the wheel? What if he got picked up by police driving while intoxicated? Would his votes for drunk driving legislation be the work of a hypocrite? Or would they be the expression of what a weak and sinful man thought was morally right, even though he couldn't live up to his ideals consistently?
UPDATE.2: I agree with Ross that if Larry Craig is forced out by the Republican Party, so should David Vitter be, and for the reasons Ross cites.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Sorry, recovering, but I'm getting two hairs for the price of one here, m'self...
I go into a restroom out of necessity and with a reasonable expectation of restricted contact with others in that place. A restroom is a public place that makes an effort to provide some level of privacy.
I go into a hotel bar with opposite aspects in play: it is my choice, and I have a reasonable expectation of less- or unrestricted contact with others.
If a man made a physical advance towards me in a restroom, I'd react with anger and act on that anger if he persisted. I consider that unacceptable behavior in that place regardless of my being heterosexual.
If a man made a physical advance towards me in a bar, I'd be honest in my rejection of it, and at worst annoyed if he persisted; I'd certainly ask management to intervene before contemplating any sort of angry response. I consider that acceptable general behavior in that place, and I will look for other reasons (usually inebriation) for persistance towards me despite my making my preferences clear. I've dealt with many drunks of many sorts in my lifetime, including homosexual ones. It all comes with the territory, in my view.
Franklin,
"A restroom is a public place that makes an effort to provide some level of privacy."
The Patriot Act has ensured that Americans do not, will not, can not, MUST not HAVE any privacy.
I am curious why you wouldn't exercise the same restraint no matter where the clumsy advance was made. Why would you "react with anger and act on that anger if he persisted" in a washroom, but yet temper your temper if it happened in a bar? Why wouldn't you "certainly ask management to intervene before contemplating any sort of angry response" in the washroom case?
Recovering, for me it's a matter of situational ethics.
1) In a bar, I am as much a guest as anyone else. A guest defers to the host in certain areas. I know many bar owners who wished some macho didn't decide to take matters into his own hands, trashing the place in the process.
2) I am making a distinction, not clearly I must grant, between an ordinary situation and a situation involving bullying. The drunk in the bar is not a bully in that situation; the man trolling for sex in the restroom is when he persists after the first demand to stop. On a purely practical level, "management" is right across the bar from me in the pub, but I have to leave the restroom and the situation to go find it. The man in the restroom is imposing on me, and an immediate response is indicated; my choices are limited there. They are not so limited in the bar.
Your question about my exercising restraint is a fair one. I'm not trying to dodge it. I have a strong opinion about many things, and courtesy is one of them. I will also grant that it is not exactly a mainstream opinion.
it's a cheap and unpersuasive argument that Larry Craig is a hypocrite for voting against gay marriage while cruising for sex in men's rooms. What does one have to do with the other?
As I understand it, we both take it for granted that Larry Craig had deep-seated homosexual desires which, for whatever reason, he occasionally acted on in public.
As a married man with children, then, Craig is arguing by example, if nothing else, that that's the sort of life a homosexual man should lead: attempt to "pass" as straight in public, marry a woman, and have furtive (and possibly dangerous) dalliances with men on the side.
By voting against gay marriage, he also demonstrates a belief that gay men should not live a life of gay couplehood, that the only marriage option available to gay men should be heterosexual marriages to women.
In a sense, then, he's not a hypocrite. In his public and private life, he seems to believe that marriage is best "protected" when gay men marry women, even if they aren't attracted to them.
Craig is NOT gay. He's just helping out while they're busy!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.