Morals Authority

By: Matthew Felling
Topics: 4th Estate Debate

(AP Photo)

Is it the sex … or just the hypocrisy? In discussing the Republicans' potential "zipper problem" in his morning column, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz asks the million dollar question:

Does [Hustler publisher Larry] Flynt's goal of exposing political hypocrites--along the way, back in '99, he cost speaker-to-be Bob Livingston his House seat--mean that only conservative Republicans are targeted, and liberal Democrats get a pass?

And the Politico starts to wonder if the Vitter story won't cost the Republican party at the ballot box:

Embarrassment for the GOP was entertainment for many others, as people in Washington and around the nation chortled over the latest stubbed toe for a crowd that took power, and held it, in large measure by decrying the decay of traditional values and by issuing censorious attacks on the personal failings of political rivals.

Beyond the chortling, however, the Vitter scandal is a small piece of a much more significant development: The demoralized state of the social conservative movement on the brink of the 2008 election.

While I have to take issue with the Politico's characterization that we're on "the brink of the 2008 election" in July of 2007, it's true that the Republicans have had a particularly tough 10 months on the "values" front. From "family values" candidate David Vitter, being tied this week to a number of prostitution rings, to Internet morality policeman Congressman Mark Foley being caught last fall behaving immorally (zing!) on the Internet (oof!), their halos have been tarnished more than a tad.

But Kurtz's point is valid. Democrats have moral issues, too – from Clinton to Cisneros to Condit -- so why does it seem to some of us that the Republicans get covered more harshly than their counterparts across the aisle?

I ask again: Is it the sex, or is it the hypocrisy?

And this time I have an answer: Yes.

First of all, the sex. Politicians have to speak to their bases. And in the case of most Republicans, that means that we are dealing with a more pious constituency. (Yes, there are millions of religious Democrats, but they tend not to speak of illicit sex as critically or judgmentally as those on the right.) So, for Republicans, the sex means more to the people they represent. It's as if a Democrat from a well-known liberal district was found to be racially insensitive. Different political environments have their own requirements and checklists for their politicians. (I mean, look at the very definition of liberal.) It's exactly this dynamic that drove the Al Gore "carbon footprint" story as well as that overblown (pun intended) story about a certain champion of the poor and his expensive haircut.

Second is what I call the "Identity Check" – a concept related to the angle above. There are signature traits that a politician puts on the menu for potential voters to judge him on. His or her family, straight-arrow lifestyle, tolerance, etc. I think that when a candidate makes a values issue or a personal virtue a selling point, then his or her transgressions become more newsworthy. That's what takes the sex stories from damaging to scandalous. Regardless of anybody's political bent, if you see a political leader saying one thing and doing the near opposite, it's going to make you livid.

(This piece has been corrected from its initial version. Congressman Foley was originally misidentified as Tom Foley, not Mark Foley.)

10 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by mattcat25 July 13, 2007 1:52 PM EDT: Republicans have problems with S-E-X. I don%u2019t believe they understand about natural and loving love-making. They consistently shroud the issue as if members of the Republican Party have never had intercourse, or a loving relationship. They, insist that procreating is something sullied and shameful and people that carry on in a sexual manner are less then benevolent.

Passages from Vice President Richard Cheney%u2019s wife Lynn Cheney%u2019s Book and pages from Scooter Libby%u2019s Book, along with the many scandalous right wing ministers, talk show media hosts, and congressional members leaves me too believe that Republicans have and promote a distorted and unhealthy view on ***.; Reply to this comment


by homjett July 13, 2007 11:59 AM EDT: I have noticed, when there is wrong doing by an Official that happens to be a Democrat, you dont always see the designation, or its buried in the bottom of the story. I noticed that the two Mayors in California got passes, then along comes Vitter an the MSM goes wild, I must say that MSNBC went overboard, but then they are now the Liberal Network as Fox is the Conservative Network, except on Fox you do here both sides. Lets see Louisiana has a Rep. thats in serious trouble but got re-elected. Mayor Nagin left folks to drown, hid in his Tower whilst School Buses sat unused. He also got re-elected. Now, the hypocrisy will be if Sen. Vitter does not get re-elected. My question is this, who is getting the Million Dollars from Larry Flynt???; Reply to this comment


by atyndall-2009 July 13, 2007 9:39 AM EDT: oops--Tom Foley was defeated in 1994.; Reply to this comment


by sanfelz July 12, 2007 11:47 PM EDT: Conservative talker Laura Ingraham criticized Mike Wallace and "60 Minutes" for asking Mitt Romney about premarital s3x. I thought it was fair because Mitt, like other conservatives, want to impose their personal morality on the entire nation.
If politicians want to emphasize their pure lifestyle, then they have to answer for their failure to live up to their own standards.; Reply to this comment


by memekiller July 12, 2007 11:22 PM EDT: "If you want a straight news story, then, you can stick with the traditional media. But if you want a spotlight placed on Vitter's hypocrisy %u2013 and the rush of satisfaction that comes with experiencing schadenfreude that you can justify %u2013 you can head over to the blogs. Is it any wonder that the latter get so many clicks?"

I'm sorry. I owe Brian an apology. In my post below, I had mistakenly assumed that that Brian was implying the MSM was above writing about something as sensationalistic as ***. On a closer reading, it becomes clear that what Brian means by a "straight news story" is one focused solely on ***. If you want to find out something as *** and sensationalistic as Vitter's actual policy positions on family values, you'll have to go to the blogs. So we're agreed; this is the major difference between the MSM and blogs.

And sorry to dominate here, especially when I agree with Matt's overall point that the hypocrisy is worthy of discussion, but it's been a while since the disconnect of beltway journalism has been placed in such stark relief -- even if you are agreeing with me.

Why is hypocrisy the issue? Because every hypocritical thing the GOP does, that the media justifies, demonstrates quite clearly that the only principle the current Republican party cares about is winning at all costs. *** is simply a weapon to use one's enemies.; Reply to this comment


by atyndall-2009 July 12, 2007 9:54 PM EDT: Mark Foley not Tom Foley. The latter was a Democratic Speaker of the House and, if memory serves, was smeared with unproven gay innuendos before his defeat in 1984.

Regards

Andrew Tyndall; Reply to this comment


by memekiller July 12, 2007 6:15 PM EDT: "So, for Republicans, the *** means more to the people they represent. It%u2019s as if a Democrat from a well-known liberal district was found to be racially insensitive."

By your logic, this means Vitter should get far MORE play because Republicans care if their representatives having ***. How much demand to Republicans have for this story? Is Guilliani's dalliances playing as badly among Republicans as it would for a Democrat to run as a racist?; Reply to this comment


by memekiller July 12, 2007 6:07 PM EDT: "in the case of most Republicans, that means that we are dealing with a more pious constituency."

Republicans care about *** and liberals don't? Condit's under-played *** scandal cost him the primary with Democratic voters. The womanizing Schwarzennagger is still in office. Presidential contenders Gingrich and Guilliani married their mistresses, and Thompson just admitted to fooling around. Do Republicans care?

When Livingston was exposed as an adulterer while leading impeachment, it was virtues czar William Bennet who fumed on CNN at the suggestion he did someting wrong -- after continuing to insist it WAS about the *** re: Clinton. DeLay, who recently admitted to frequent affairs until he found Jesus, literally CRIED at the injustice of Livingston's resignation.

Republicans don't care about ***. They only care about DEMOCRATS having ***. Democrats don't care who's having ***. They just hate people who win elections claiming they're more moral than we are getting a free pass when they get caught exchanging hookers for defense contracts.; Reply to this comment


by one_american July 12, 2007 6:05 PM EDT: The hipocrisy will be much more highly displayed by the Democrats, as soon as one highly-popular Democrat is exposed the list...; Reply to this comment


by memekiller July 12, 2007 6:03 PM EDT: "But Kurtz%u2019s point is valid. Democrats have moral issues, too %u2013 from Clinton to Cisneros to Condit -- so why does it seem to some of us that the Republicans get covered more harshly than their counterparts across the aisle?"

Wow, that's quite a point. Why is it that the Clinton *** scandal got overlooked, and Vitter's didn't? Except that, Clinton's *** scandal was mentioned 24/7 for an entire year during that impeachment thing you would have heard about, if only the media had done their jobs.

But Vitter on the other hand -- didn't you read the PublicEye post yesterday, explaining how the difference between blogs and the respectable MSM is that you guys don't peddle that kind of sleaze. Which, in journalist speak, means it's getting so much more play than Clinton's sexual foibles, obviously.; Reply to this comment