Observers keep wondering how the Republican Party, the Christian Right, and "values voters" can continue to support politicians like David Vitter. After all, he's violated the same moral code he and his allies would forcibly impose through the power of the state. While the left understandably rages about hypocrisy - and that's the right word for partisans like the GOP and Tucker Carlson - rank-and-file Christian voters continue to support a motley assemblage of Republican "sinners," no matter how glaring their personal dishonesty or how unorthodox their sexual behavior. What gives?
The answer may lie in an as-yet undiscovered medical condition I call "Political Suppression of Sexuality Disorder," or PSSS. When conservatives are caught in compromising positions in the future, it's possible that they'll plead PSSS and check themselves into the nearest rehab (although some angry and defiant types like Vitter may very well echo that new hit song by saying "no, no, no.")
PSSS should be added to next edition of the the DSM Manual of Mental Disorders, with the following general criteria:
Political Suppression of Sexuality Disorder
A condition in which the individual believes the human body and personality are hostile zones which must be forcibly subdued through external forces, especially state action.
Two or more of the following must be present for a diagnosis of PSSS:
- Intense fear of the patient's own sexual desires and impulses.
Belief that only external forces such as military or police personnel can successfully suppress the human reproductive instinct, coupled with the belief that it must be suppressed. Intermittent periods of sexual indulgence, regardless of the potential risk to career, social standing, or family relations; interspersed with (or concurrent with) periods of intense political activity designed to suppress the same sexual behavior the patient is unable to resist. A desire to subordinate one's own freedom of choice to political and religious authority figures who disapprove of the behavior to which the patient is attracted. The formation of political alliances with those who disapprove of the behavior to which the patient is attracted, coupled with he urge to advocate against one's own sexual predilections publicly and forcefully.__________________________
Political leaders can, of course, suffer from PSSS and be hypocrites at the same time. Some otherwise inexplicable outbursts are best explained using this mixed diagnosis. (Think about all those conservative images of group sex and pedophilia in response to gay marriage proposals, for example. Better yet - don't.)
Why have so many political and religious figures said that gay marriage will lead to bestiality? Christian anti-abortion activist Neal Horsley was very explicit about his intimate history with farm animals - and his belief that this was a widespread form of agrarian sexual expression. (I kid you not.)
Of course, there are many on the right who appear to have no problem with sexuality - their own or anyone else's - but attack public figures selectively for sexual behavior in order to advance their own political agendas. Dick Cheney's an obvious choice here, but so is George W. Bush. The best story I've ever heard about Bush involves a transsexual college friend who met him in the White House after many years. With great discomfort, she said "I used to be ..." and blurted out her old male first name. She stammered, "And now I'm ... I'm ..."
"And now you're you," Bush said reassuringly. That's a sweet and even beautiful story. It suggests that Bush doesn't suffer from PSSS. He's just another hypocrite.
Then there's Tucker Carlson, who led the charge against Clinton's infidelity. When Vitter's indiscretions were revealed, Tucker suddenly became the defender of private liberties. Glenn Greenwald documented both the shrillness and the cynicism of his Vitter defense, which echoed my own experience with Tucker (although our conversation was considerably more civil). During that show, and later on his blog, he implied that the left as a whole was comprised of "slanderers." (Hmm. What was that Shakespeare line about "protesting too much"?)
There are only three ways to look at the sex lives of politicians:
1. Infidelity and "deviant" sexual expression (i.e. non-missionary acts) are personal matters, and we're not interested in the sex lives of our leaders.
2. Infidelity and sexual "deviance" are sins, and we condemn it in our leaders regardless of political party.
3. Infidelity and sexual "deviance" are morally wrong, but we excuse in with politicians we like and use against those we don't like.
People of good will can disagee about #1 and #2, but #3 is clearly indefensible. And yet that's where you'll find the entire GOP establishment, the Christian Right, and media advocates like Tucker Carlson. But what about "values voters" themselves? Why don't they turn against figures like David Vitter?
Here's one reason: They want somebody to protect them from themselves. That's why they can forgive Gingrich or Giuliani but not Kennedy or Clinton: Rudy and Newt will protect them from their own bodies and minds with authoritarian laws. Ted and Bill won't.
Liberals like Joan Walsh who point out the inherent hypocrisy of Vitter and his supporters aren't hypocrites themselves, despite the angry accusations from the right. They explicitly condemn the double standard, not the behavior itself. The right's rage is a response to being discovered in an indefensible position.
We don't need a new diagnosis to explain Tucker et al. The "hypocrite" label fits just fine. But here's a possible explanation for the Vitters of the world, and for the "values voters" who keep supporting them:
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
It's Another Trump-Biden Showdown — And We Need Your Help
The Future Of Democracy Is At Stake
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?
HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.
But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our journalism free and accessible to all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.