It is a time of fear in the face of freedom, a time for the widening of previous roads and the opening of new paths, a time of an emptying country and swelling cities, yet a time when these paths are mined by knowing algorithms of the all-seeing eye. It is the time of the warrior's peace and the miser's charity, when the planting of a seed is an act of conscientious objection.
 | Larry Craig, AntiGay in Public, and Who Cares What in Private |
The latest shocker in this year’s congressional races is the story that Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig has had many homosexual affairs.
The pretext of this story, which is based on several anonymous sources, is to show that Larry Craig is a hypocrite. Senator Craig talks big about family values in public, but doesn’t really value them in private, so the narrative goes. Senator Craig even went so far as to vote for the Defense of Marriage amendment to the United States Constitution to permanently outlaw same-sex marriage, but there he was having homosexual affairs in private.
That’s how the story is being told, but I don’t think it’s how the story should be told.
I don’t think it’s relevant what Senator Larry Craig’s personal sex life is. Period.
The real issue is that Senator Craig wants to use his public power to punish other people because of their sexual orientation. That’s wrong if Larry Craig is a heterosexual who is faithful in his marriage, and it’s wrong if Larry Craig is a secretly gay man who cheats on his wife.
The pretext of exposing hypocrisy is a sham. Yes, if Larry Craig has been having secret gay affairs, he’s a liar. Big deal. Did we really think before this story came out that Larry Craig wasn’t a liar? Of course not.
The real motivation behind this story disturbs me. It’s a blatant effort to appeal to the hatred and revulsion that right wing Republican voters in Idaho have for homosexuality. In a way, this story encourages the idea that homosexuality is scandalous. It supports the idea that we ought to judge elected officials according to the way in which they have sex.
We ought to be more principled than this. Let Larry Craig mess around sexually however he wants. His private affairs are none of our business. It’s Larry Craig’s morally corrupt public activities in the United States Senate that ought to be of real concern.
Contact Us
Agreed. These tactics are not the way to win an election.
Comment by Froot Loops — 10/18/2006 @ 12:18 pm
Do we know who outed this guy?
Was it the Democrats, or the Christian fundamentalists?
Rumor has it Dobson’s got a McCarthy-style list of names–of closeted Gay Republicans. Of course, that might just be a rumor floated by the Democrats.
I almost wish it were the Democrats. It would mean they’re playing kick-’em-in-the-balls politics, thinking three or four moves ahead, manipulating the religious fundamentalists, and leading their opponents into traps, just like Rove. What are the chances from the party strategists who gave us “Together, We Can Do Better,” then argued about the commas?
No, I’m betting the American people are once again snickering their way through an under-acheivement in historical perspective. In 1998, it was a mistake to be more concerned about consensual sex between adults than international relations and the threat of terrorism, right? But apparently eight years later, now that the war on terrorism/religious extremism/Islamofascism/evil/whatever isn’t going the way we’d like it to… Huh huh, he’s GAY! Huh.
Comment by Ralph — 10/18/2006 @ 12:54 pm
Hmm. I’m not convinced. To me, if someone’s private and public faces are mismatched, that’s a lack of integrity. We should demand integrity of our representatives; and their sex lives should not be exempt. If a Congressman gets elected by demonizing polluters, and then it turns out that he secretly owns a coal-fired power plant, then that’s clearly relevant, even though his personal finances would otherwise be a private matter. Similarly, if an actively gay man wants to be a Congressman, and stays in power by demonizing gays, then the fact of his homosexuality is relevant to the voters.
Comment by John Stracke — 10/19/2006 @ 11:34 am
But isn’t his demonization of gays the main ethical point, John?
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 10/19/2006 @ 11:47 am
Sure. What I’m saying is that hypocrisy is a relevant ethical lapse, too, and one that people will agree on, even if they support the demonization. In fact, his supporters are the very ones who are most likely to be angry about his hypocrisy, because he’s now become one of the people he’s taught them to hate.I agree it’s a little ugly to attack a Congressman by exposing him to the anti-gay mob. But, if he’d been honest in the first place, the attack wouldn’t work on him. Nobody tries this kind of crap on Barney Frank.
Comment by John Stracke — 10/19/2006 @ 12:20 pm
This is the same problem Gary Hart had some years ago before withdrawing from the presidential race. At that time nobody really cared what politicians did in private and the press would not report on a purely private picadillo, but Hart went public and said, “I`m not doing anything, go ahead and have me followed.” Of course the press followed him and found out he was having an affair.
What would have happened if the press had done this without an engraved invitation is anybody`s guess, but in fact, he was brought down by the cognitive dissonance–the disconnect between his public statements and his private actions.
Comment by Iroquois Honky — 10/19/2006 @ 2:23 pm
I don’t think this is equivalent to the case of Gary Hart. The difference is that Hart wasn’t using his position to harm those who had affairs; he just denied that he was one. If he had been agitating for a War On Adultery, then it would have been appropriate to expose him; as it was, his adultery was nobody’s business.
Of course, the fact that he was dumb enough to issue that challenge while having an affair, that was arguably relevant to the voters. In that light, the Miami Herald may have done us a favor.
Comment by John Stracke — 10/19/2006 @ 2:56 pm
You’re right John, that there is the difference that Larry Craig is using his power to hurt people who have sex.
But, it’s not his sexual activity that Larry Craig is hurting people with. It’s his legislative power. The legislative power is the problem, not how Larry Craig chooses to have sex.
Comment by J. Clifford — 10/19/2006 @ 3:08 pm
So Larry Craig is actually saying he is above the law. There should be one “family values” standard for the “little people” but another for Larry Craig.
Comment by Iroquois Honky — 10/19/2006 @ 5:34 pm
Yes, Iroquois Honky, that’s what I mean: by not living up to the standard he tries to impose on others, he shows that he has no integrity, and should not be trusted, regardless of whether or not you think his standard is valid.
J. Clifford, I’m not disagreeing with you; I’m just saying that exposing a politician’s (genuine) lack of integrity is always ethical, regardless of the underlying behavior. The fact that, in this case, exposing Craig’s lack of integrity requires exposing his homosexuality does not mean that he should get a pass.
Comment by John Stracke — 10/20/2006 @ 11:20 am
A year before the breaking of FootsieGate, you had it right: the real problem here isn’t Larry Craig’s alleged gayness. The real problems are Larry Craig’s anti-gay legislative record and the hysterical, frigid reactions of Craig’s former Republican allies who seem to think they’re going to catch cooties.
If this is how the Republicans treat a former friend and ally, how do you think they are going to treat you?
Comment by Jim — 8/28/2007 @ 9:05 am