If Larry Craig was a Democrat, we'd be hearing a lot from liberals in the media about how he was bravely exploring his sexual identity. We would hear indignant objections to this policeman who, obviously having nothing better to do with his time, was doing surveillance in airport bathrooms in search of innocent people to harass and victimize. The ACLU would be right in there, asking about Craig's right to privacy and wondering why such ambiguous evidence (he placed his bag in front of the door, he tapped his foot) was enough to warrant arrest and prosecution. Even Craig's guilty plea would be employed in his favor: look, the man is at least being honest about what he did, and why should he be ashamed of being who he is? If Larry Craig was a Democrat, the system, not Craig, would be on trial.
Unfortunately for Larry Craig, he is a Republican and a conservative to boot. We've been hearing a lot about conservative hypocrisy in the past several days: turning on CNN, I saw anchor Soledad O' Brien, correspondent Candy Crowley and legal pundit Jeff Toobin all having a great time with the subject. None of them saw fit to comment on the Himalayan hypocrisy of the liberals, undoubtedly because they embodied it.
So where is the liberal hypocrisy? Consider: the cardinal values of today's liberalism are the right to personal freedom, the right of consenting adults to do what they want as long as they do not trespass on the rights of others, and the right to privacy. Larry Craig's conduct may have been unseemly, but he did not violate any of the liberal values. He wasn't assaulting the man in the other stall, he was approaching him to seek his consent. Whatever he was doing, he wasn't doing it in the Oval Office like Clinton but in a men's room stall. Notwithstanding the obscure "signaling" that was apparently going on, Craig didn't actually engage in any kind of sexual activity. No cigars were inserted into any private orifices. Craig's home, in contrast with Barney Frank's apartment, was not used as a full-service prostitution venue. Craig hasn't figured out, like Gerry Studds, that you don't have to forage in airport restrooms when there are pages to be turned over on Capitol Hill itself.
In all those cases--Barney Frank, Gerry Studds, Bill Clinton--liberals rushed to the defense of their guys and proceeded to attack their critics as the real threat to civil liberties and social freedom. (Bill Clinton's approval ratings on the left actually rose when his sexal misconduct came to public light.) Therefore in the Larry Craig case, liberal indignation stands exposed as largely opportunistic. Here is a chance to hoist the conservatives on their own petard, to hang another scandal on the necks of the GOP, and to undermine the case for moral standards in society under the pretext of upholding them.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 9)
46. This is a pretty weak editorial. I'll buy that this would have been a less-scandalous revelation if Craig were a Democrat. But that's because--duh--he likely wouldn't have spent much of his career extolling the virtues of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It's the hypocrisy, stupid!
PJ at 1:09PM on Sep 4th 2007
47. Give it up! You're beating a dead horse. The republicans have been getting caught at their hypocrisy and you can't take it. They never were as pro life as they have claimed, nor as supportive of the NRA, or probably as homophobic.....but they needed the votes of these lobby groups so they faked it since the Reagan days. Case in point..... Cheney in the debates supported his daughters lifestyle...as would a liberal but he stays silent about it to sucker in the evangelical right for their needed votes. The republican "family values" platform was phony and always was. They embraced Jerry Falwell and the like even though as we have heard they made fun of them behind their backs. Most of the educated, moneyed and powerful republicans abhor these people but must put the act on to sucker them in. Like casting for a fish and drawing them in, time after time they throw out the bait and they come crawling in like zombies and the act must continue if the "real" republicans want to keep winning elections.
Rick at 1:17PM on Sep 4th 2007
48. Mr. DeSouza has to be the lamest and laziest thinker in the Conservative tank. His rhetoric is always a repetitious re-tread of the usual Conservative baloney; 'Liberals are to blame, blah, blah, blah'.
The day he has an original thought in his head will be one for the record books.
Who pays this guy to write this drivel? Whoever it is, sure ain't gettin' their money's worth.
If this is any example, the dearth of intellectual thinking at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University is appalling.
Are you merely some hack, writing purposedly inflammatory nonsense so that people can respond angrily? Or are you really this ignorant an ideologue?
Either way makes you pathetic.
m. smith at 1:21PM on Sep 4th 2007
49. If if if. If frogs had glass asses they would not jump. Speaking of if Dinesh.. If I were a carpenter and you were a lady. Would you marry me anyway? Would you have my baby?
Steve at 2:06PM on Sep 4th 2007
50. You know, DD, just come out. It's so painfully obvious that you are a closet case as well. When did you know? 8th grade? The only people that will defend profound hypocrites usually are one themselves.
abers076 at 2:05PM on Sep 4th 2007
51. DD, you poor excuse of a so called professional blogger. After reading through todays responses to your little, poorly thought out diatribe it is patently clear that you lack greatly in providing intelligent debate on this issue.
What an extremely poor choice to attemtpt the 'What if' argument. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. all totally irrelevant to serious dilogue on the issue at hand; (nah, don't bother excusing the pun)>
Craig has a history of at the least, accusations concerning his questionable extramarital activities. Craig throughout his career has attempted to hide them by proclaiming himself a staunch right wing anti-gay conservative. Craig, entirely through his own actions, not those of BC, or anyone else was caught with his pants down...(OK so he was in a mens-room stall at the time, bd).
Positing the worn out 'What if" is a mute, unjustifiable argument. DD you get a failing grade, once again proving yourself NOT UP TO THE JOB! Understanding that you hold any position in academia is of great concern, not only is your thinking muddy, but your grasp of the reality of this specific situation - negative.
GOP pals to Larry C, whom he worked for and with over these past thirty plus years threw him over and abandoned him. DD, why don't you consider this sad fact in your writing? It would provide real issue discussion instead of more of the same polarizing vitriol to which you seem so dedicated>
Steven at 2:10PM on Sep 4th 2007
52. Posts 49 & 50 are from two Steve's, I know since I am one of them and noticed DD seems to attract resonses from others with this GREAT name....
In no way does this diminish or obfuscate the sad fact that an individual in academia is patently inept in providing anything approaching serious dialogue in defense of his worn out conservative views.
AOL please, given this guy his walking papers and provide someone with writing and thinking abilities which rise to the level of your more intelligent readers.
Steven at 2:29PM on Sep 4th 2007
53. I assume this means Dinesh believes soliciting men for anonymous casual encounters in restrooms is perfectly acceptable conduct, and Craig is an upstanding man, politician and husband who's being smeared for political reasons.
More power to you for taking such a bold stand, DD, but I think you're wrong on both counts. If the man's wife can't trust him, how can anyone else, such as the Idaho voters? And stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't having sex seldom a legal, acceptable activity in restrooms? Maybe that's why that mean, evil cop was out wasting his time arresting the people who attempt to do it?
For the first time in years, I agree with the GOP position: toss the slippery, lying untrustworthy bum out like last week's trash. And you dwindling Republican supporters, stop your moping. It's unseemly in this case.
Disgruntled Former GOPer at 2:39PM on Sep 4th 2007
54. Gullible people like D'Souza believe that in a democracy we can elect Republicans to raise the moral bar on the nation. Mr. D'Souza, a democracy is not about electing politicians to positions so they can raise a nation's "moral values." Republicans are just mortal men (and women) culpable of the same moral ineptitude as anyone else. ASK WHAT A POLITCAL CANDIDATE WILL DO FOR THE NATION BUT PLEASE DON'T ASK HIM/HER TO RESTORE MORAL VALUES, as that is pure crock! If priests can molest children in the temple then the politicians can surely molest your mind to extract votes! Don't play dumb and expect others to do likewise!
Robb at 2:40PM on Sep 4th 2007
55. The difference, Dinesh, is that Craig was blatently anti-gay and used his power to withold the rights of gays. People listened to him and took his opinions as implicit permission to harm gay people.
For that, he deserves what he got.
Richard at 2:50PM on Sep 4th 2007
56. HEY DINESH, YOU STUPID IDIOT. GO BACK TO THE MIDDLE EAST. IT WAS THE REPUBLICANS WHO LIKE TO "EAT" THEIR OWN....NOT BACKING CRAIG WAS A POLITICAL DECISION. REPUBLICANS USUALLY LIKE CHILD MOLESTERS AND PERVERTS. REMEMBER, MARK FOLEY? THERE IS AN ELECTION COMING IN 08 AND THESE FAKE REPUBLICANS WANT TO GET RE-ELECTED. HOW PATHETIC. VOTE ALL REPUBLICANS OUT.
sandy at 5:48PM on Sep 7th 2007
57. Until red state Bible thumping morons get over this anti homo crap, there will always be Larry Craigs.
Let's not ask "what if Larry Craig was a Democrat," ask "what if Larry Craig were just as he is (anti homo and all), but had admitted he was gay." This incident would be nothing more than a mildly titillating and prurient episode that we could giggle at. He wouldn't be a rank hypocrite, which is truly his downfall, and he'd surely have defenders of his right to his own personal life come to his defense. It's truly the hypocrisy that is most odious.
Chuck Williams at 3:08PM on Sep 4th 2007
58. IT'S CALLED HYPOCRISY! WHAT PARTY THINKS THEY ARE THE
"MORAL" VALUE
PARTY? THE REPUBLICANS, YET THEY DO THE SAME THINGS? IT'S NOT THAT
CRAIG WAS REPUBLICAN, IT IS THE FACT THAT REPUBLICANS LIKE TO LIVE IN
GLASS HOUSES AND THEN THROW STONES.....ALSO, IT WAS CRAIG'S OWN PARTY
WHO THREW HIM UNDER THE BUS.....I SMELL AN ELECTION YEAR
COMING...MORE PROOF HOW RUTHLESS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS...
sandy at 3:10PM on Sep 4th 2007
59. Yawn, yawn, another partisan neocon trying to save face. Dinesh my man you have absolutely no credibility, you are nothing more than a political hack. You can put all the lipstick and powder in the world on this pig but it is still a pig.
Robert at 3:21PM on Sep 4th 2007
60. Good point Rob. We would be in one hell of a shape if it were left to politicians to raise the moral bar of this country. Unfortunately, its the republicans that cry "family values" purely for votes in much the same way the Pentecostal preachers scream "Jesus" for money. The repubs don't get it. We don't want liars and hypocrits telling us how to run our lives. We just want people to go to Washington to fix our bridges, alot money for highways, to intelligently work toward our national defense, to prepare our cities for natural disasters, in short to make us safe and proud of country. I don't care if they are protestants, catholics, mormons or for that matter atheists just as long as they do a good job.
Instead we have these conservatives decrying "family values" which is thier code words for hatred of gays and blacks or for that matter anyone that doesn't belong to the Bushwood Country Club.
But why should we worry our beautiful minds about that, its only the future of our country thats at stake.
Also, Dinesh, if I were you I would feel shame about your blog.
Steve Seivers at 3:31PM on Sep 4th 2007