In the wake of the Larry Craig "Bathroomgate" story, some intrepid
free-market-oriented bloggers came up with a novel solution to the problem
of closeted gay conservatives indulging their carnal desires on the side.
Gay sex offsets.
The same market-based approach is used by environmentally crapulent liberal
celebrities all the time. They use private jets, drive around with big
entourages and own numerous energy-sucking homes. To make amends, they
purchase an indulgence in the form of "carbon offsets" - a contract whereby
the equivalent amount of greenhouse gases are soaked up by newly planted
trees and the like.
So why not do the same thing with gay sex? Cruise the bus station, cut a
check to the heterosexuality-promoting organization of your choice.
Since most on the left think Craig's alleged sexual liaisons are perfectly
benign, they shouldn't object. "Who are we to judge?" and all that. Rather,
the left claims it hates Craig's hypocrisy, not his behavior.
From Rush Limbaugh's drug use to Bill Bennett's gambling to the long list of
Republican politicians who've thrown a few earmarks and riders into their
marriage vows, the left has chosen to denounce the perceived hypocrisy
rather than the behavior. The indictment sometimes loses its punch in the
details. Bennett never inveighed against gambling, for example.
But that misses the point. The left claims to hate "moralizers." So any
failure to live like Jesus while telling others to follow his example is an
outrage, even the defining challenge of our lives. (In 2005, Democratic
National Committee Chairman Howard Dean pledged, "I will use whatever
position I have in order to root out hypocrisy.")
One solution to the hypocrisy epidemic, of course, is to have no morals at
all. You can't violate your principles if you don't have any. Another
solution: simply define down your principles until they are conveniently
consistent with your preferred lifestyle. My own perfect moral code would
mandate a strict regimen of not enough exercise, too much scotch and a diet
rich in cured meats. Men would be religiously barred from taking out the
garbage until their wives told them no less than three times to do so. "Thou
Shalt Not Shave More Than Thrice Monthly": I'd never be a hypocrite if only
the Bible gave us commandments like that.
But the left has another solution. Under its system, you can still be a
moralizer. You can still tell people what to do and how to live. And, best
of all, you can still fall short of your ideals personally while guiltlessly
trying to use government to impose your moral vision on others. All you have
to do is become a liberal moralizer.
Once you become a liberal, you can wax eloquent on the glories of the public
schools while sending your kids to private school. You can wax prolix about
the greedy rich while making a fortune on the side. You can even use the
government to impose your values willy-nilly, from racial quotas and
confiscatory tax rates to draconian environmental policies and sex-ed for
grade-schoolers - all of which will paid for in part by people who disagree
with you.
You don't even have to give up traditional religion, so long as you now
define the teachings of your faith in perfect compliance with the Democratic
platform.
Why, just look at John Kerry. In 2004, the Democratic nominee repeatedly
insisted that his religious faith is "why I fight against poverty. That's
why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I
fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that
fundamental teaching and belief of faith." Great! But when it comes to, say,
abortion, consulting one's faith is a no-no: "What is an article of faith
for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share
that article of faith."
So I guess under a Kerry administration, America's civil rights and economic
and environmental policies would all be voluntary?
The point is simply this: Hypocrisy is bad, sure. But it's a human failing
that should fall upon the individual in question. What the left wants to do
is use hypocrisy as a cudgel to declare that conservative ideals are
categorically illegitimate because some conservatives fail to live up to
them. But we all fail to live up to our ideals sometimes (just ask John
Edwards, who wants get rid of everyone's SUV, save the one in his driveway).
That's sort of why we call them "ideals." Most of us don't fall as far as
Larry Craig seems to have fallen, but that's not necessarily an indictment
of his arguments, it's an indictment of the man.