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 9 of 9)
121. George - I agree that marriage has evolved over time and that as the customs and mores of the country change, there may very well come the time when the civil marriage contract extends to any and all parties regardles of sex. I don't think the country is there yet. But I really apprecaite the debate and especially the lack of rancor and ad hominem attacks I see on this and other blogs. Thanks.
Joe Edgington at 5:24PM on Sep 7th 2007
122. I do declare, wasn't Clinton caught with his pants down and lied? Was he not a Democrat? Personally I do not see any revelance to whatever party they belong to today. People are people. They make mistakes and truth gets lost as well the knowledge of right and wrong,If he lied then he must go. Its that simple. Republicans or Democrats should be shown the door if they lie to the people they serve. Bill Clinton lied and tried to cover it up. Craig needs to go.
sally miller at 6:25PM on Sep 7th 2007
123. Hi joe
I too enjoyed Thank you for keeping it real
I also do not think the country is at that point yet. And maybe it won't.
Have a good one
George
george at 7:40PM on Sep 7th 2007
124. You republicans are such a hoot that I am almost happy you have genetic defects. You have an additional hypocricy chromosome.
Captain Negative at 5:53PM on Sep 8th 2007
125. Dinesh,
F for grammar.
F for logic.
Rebecca at 3:16PM on Sep 11th 2007
126. Curious... I don't recall Ried or Pelosi calling for his resignation.
But let's play the game and suppose that Craig WAS a democrat. Likely he wouldn't have spent years condemning homosexuality. Likely he wouldn't have backed several attempts to consitutionally ban marriage between consenting homosexual adults. It's possible he may have stayed in the closet with a 'normal' family, but he might also have been gay. And maybe he would have been asked to resign if he had been a democrat and gotten caught, but not for being gay, but for committing a crime.
But he isn't a democrat. He has chosen, perhaps to his own failing, to align himself with a political party who finds his sexuality disagreeable at best and anathema at worst. And all the suppositions that Dinesh D'souza makes won't change the fact that he was a republican who's latest hypocracy was exposed. No matter how Dinesh tries to marginalize, deflect, or rationalize it... Craig was a republican who got caught solisiting sex from another man. And no matter his party, that is a crime and a glimpse into his hypocritical life that is really quite pitiful.
Somber
Somber at 5:56PM on Sep 11th 2007
127. Apparently you want me to post my opinion on this article.
While the author despise liberals in a sarcastic tone – he misses understanding on what the senator did, what the cop did, and who/what the liberals are. I have to stress that he is very sarcastic again – and clearly writes with prejudice.
1. Liberals believe in personal responsibility and knowledge of self and your government. They do not trust any politician, even libertarians.
2. Larry Craig is gay or bi-sexual at least – so he was not exploring.
3. Cop was doing what the law required him to do – change the law if you do not like it, if you think you cannot change the laws – why bother voting for anything…
4. Politicians are scrutinized more than Joe Shmoe because they hold public office, which means that they have to learn that they are always watched. Craig was just horny sob who got his desires got better of him
5. Craig made very obvious mistake – he was being two-faced politician, hypocritical about gay rights – who do people more like openly gay or two-faced self-righteous.
6. Craig “t he did not violate any of the liberal values.” – yes he did not trespass: “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” He screwed up on above (#5) point.
7. “Liberals rushed to the defense of their guys and proceeded to attack their critics as the real threat to civil liberties and social freedom.” – author probably meant that other democrats rushed to the defense – no liberal would be staunch supporter of liar, cheater, or illegal activity that harms others – which are not freedoms or civil liberties.
8. “Bill Clinton's approval ratings on the left actually rose” – another point that he was not talking about libertarians – because libertarians are not on the left – they are more capitalistic than republicans if you compare them all (socialists, communists, republicans, democrats, libertarians)
9. “Here is a chance to hoist the conservatives on their own petard, to hang another scandal on the necks of the GOP” – now he smears libertarians as those in GOP. While libertarians are closer ideologically to republicans than to democrats – they are neither – they are libertarians. As it is also true that many libertarians are active republicans only because they would not be elected as democrats or independents.
10. SO the author is an idiot…
Scot Bagpiper at 12:37AM on Sep 14th 2007