"In June, I overreacted and made a poor decision. While I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct at the Minneapolis airport or anywhere else I chose to plead guilty in the hope of making it go away."--Senator Larry Craig
The aforementioned quote is a leading candidate for understatement of the year in 2007. It was indeed a bad decision that did not go away until Craig fell on his political sword by announcing his intention to resign last week.
Not to be compared with Senators Daniel Webster or Everett Dirksen, Craig does not possess myriad landmark legislation that bears his name. He has, however, entered the pantheon of popular culture that enshrines one into the answers in Trivial Pursuit and the questions on Jeopardy, based on his behavior in a public restroom.
It is tragic because his Republican colleagues, hiding behind that fact that he broke the law, threw Craig under the bus. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, called Craig's behavior 'unforgivable." Would that be for claiming that he was picking up toilet paper on a public bathroom floor or voting to send our troops into a hopeless quagmire?
I wonder why members of Congress, convicted of a DUI, are not forced to relinquish their committee assignments, backed into the corner of the room reserved only for pariahs, leaving resignation as the sole option available, as was Craig.
Why didn't Republican leaders do likewise to Louisiana Senator, David Vitter, when it was recently revealed that in addition to leading the clarion call for family values, the married Vitter also possesses a delectable appetite for ladies of the evening?
The reason is simple; Craig was convicted, albeit a misdemeanor, of something that is perceived to be outside of the dominant culture. And that was unacceptable to a political party whose rhetoric is based, in part, on a linear definition of family values.
Human history is paved with those who have fallen under the weight of their own moral hypocrisy. Preachers and politicians, in particular, have been guilty of building towers of morality for others that they are unable to attain and unwilling to attempt.
I can only guess the amount of pain and confusion that has been placed at the feet of Craig's family. Given the longevity of the rumors about Craig's sexuality, it is quite possible what transpired may simply reflect the inevitable that they had come to expect. Or this could all be, as Craig's son Michael told Good Morning America, a case of, "he was a victim of circumstance, in the wrong place at the wrong time."
But this tragedy goes well beyond a senator being convicted of a misdemeanor in a Minneapolis airport and the impact on his family. Those opposed to same-gender marriage could not have had a more staunch supporter for their cause than Larry Craig.
We have repeatedly witnessed the Larry Craigs, the Mark Foleys, and the Ted Haggards cruelly using their influence by day to dehumanize the same folk that they become by night. In doing so, they wrap themselves in a cocoon of self-hatred, eagerly feeding on the nutrients of ambition as a way to not confront their own reality.
Such Freudian behavior may make for fascinating study for legions of psychotherapist at their annual conferences, but it is unduly harmful to the legions of same-gender couples that simply want to drink from the well of equal protection under the law.
Craig's actions, along with those of former Rep. Foley ignorantly justify the public's "see I told you so" impulses. With little insight into gay culture, lewd acts in public places and the preying on Congressional pages unfairly become the stuff by which an entire community is wrongfully defined.
Going forward, video of Craig's moral indignation about Bill Clinton's sexual dalliances on Meet the Press during the Lewinsky affair ought to be a healthy reminder of the hypocrisy of the hypocrisy.
Moreover, we ought to at least wonder if the pied pipers of morality have indeed constructed moral standards for others that is well beyond their personal reach.
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or leave a message at (510) 208-6417.
Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks
Your Saviour Eternally (that means forever)
Jesus H Christ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxu1Yoi50BY
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/09/idaho-senator-larry-craig-is.html#links
One of its last chapters would be devoted to Senator Larry Craig. But Senator Craig’s chapter would follow twenty or so other chapters about the numerous episodes in the last dozen years in which loud-mouthed, sanctimonious, conservative preachers, politicians, public officials, activists, and spokespersons have embarrassed themselves by behavior comparably hypocritical to that of Senator Craig. Those behaviors include philandering, pederasty, homosexual encounters, kinky sex, patronizing prostitutes, estrangement from family, and unseemly divorce.
Some argue that such domestic and private peccadilloes are personal matters and so do not belong in political discussions. However, the issue of interest here is not sexual morality, but hypocrisy among those who hold power and responsibility, which is always a matter of public interest. The transgressors who would be profiled in this book are persons who grabbed the stage to proclaim the primacy and hegemony of conventional sexual morality, “family values,” and Christian values – and who, in most cases, also to castigate deviators from those codes. The writer who takes up this task will have to document all the loud talk that preceded the falls, not just the sordid details of the falls themselves. Publication of this book might not persuade social conservatives to change their views, but it might cause them to at least shut up for a while.
The assertion that there are persons on the left who have committed the same behaviors and actions is undeniably true, but largely irrelevant to the issue of hypocrisy. Leaders on the left tend not to proclaim the inviolability of conventional morality or to excoriate those who deviate from it.
First, perceived by whom? Gay, lesbian, and bi are comfortably ensconced in the academic world within which I function. Neither I nor my colleagues perceive such orientations as "outside [our] dominant culture."
Second, what do you mean by "dominant culture"? Culture isn't monolithic. A white academic, I drive a black friend with less than high school education to doctor's appointments each week. The culture within which my friend plays out his life is opaque to me. And the culture within which I play out my life is opaque to him. With equal and honest good will we reach out, but the gap is wide.
Craig's sexual orientation was genetically encoded. No blame there. His attempt to maintain a straight public and family life has been heroic, though truly sad. Proper response there? Anguish and anger. Why was a presumably decent man forced to deny his true nature?
But Craig's homophobic rhetoric and legislative votes? Hypocrytical and evil. That he suffered his own undeserved pain makes him worthy of sympathy and respect. That he acted to make others suffer publicly the pain he suffered privately, merely to gain political advantage? That is beneath contempt!
But aren't we partly responsible for this mess as voters? I'm not Christian, nor Republican, but I know a little about both and it seems so very odd to me that we as a nation seem generally and genuinely enthusiastic about what candidates say more so than what they do. Isn't that our own denial in a less pathologized manifestation? If history has taught us anything it's that when a leader stands up and says I'm a Christian and I hate the following things:, aren't we supposed to know by now what we're dealing with? Like I said, I'm not Christian but I've read the greatest hits and while there's a lot of hatred in all religions, I don't remember reading a quote by Jesus listing all the things to hate. So why do we vote for these people? Idahoans might have an interesting answer - Larry Craig was doing everything right (hating all the right things) until he was caught being who he really is. And are so much better for villifying someone like him? We might be slightly better because he's such a blatant hypocrite, but shouldn't we as a society be more than just slightly better?
Every political conversation held needs to contain disparaging references to a Republican senator (Vitter), who was confessedly diapered by hookers, and the fact that he is being protected because his state's governor, a Democrat, might possibly appoint another Democratic senator in the cynical Republican's stead. Representatives and Senators, especially but not exclusively Republicans, ought to be asked about the curious disparity in intraparty reaction - publicly and often.