Forgive and Forget?

I agree with E.J. Dionne that on some level I'm "rooting for [Senator David] Vitter [R-LA] to survive because I so want to return to a time when we -- that 'we' includes the media -- chose to pay little attention to the extracurricular sexual activities of our politicians." I don't, however, think we should "grant Vitter our collective absolution and move on." Among other things, while Vitter seems to have something to apologize about to his wife, there's really nothing prostitution-related "we" need to collectively forgive Vitter for. I don't feel wronged by Vitter having purchased the services of one or more prostitutes, so it would be silly to forgive him.

Nor do I feel wronged by Vitter's hypocrisy since, at the end of the day, as far as sins go hypocrisy is pretty weak tea. What I do feel wronged by is Vitter's wrongheaded views about public policy whose wrongheadedness is demonstrated by the sympathy decent people have for Vitter's situation. I mean, who among us thinks that what the world needs is for the state to do a more vigorous job of harassing David Vitter into conforming his sex life to traditional norms? The answer, it turns out, is . . . David Vitter; except that maybe it turns out that Vitter thinks there should be a David Vitter Exception to his general views on the matter. Either way, Vitter is wrong. And if Vitter wants forgiveness he should come by it honestly and bring his views in line with the way he would want, personally, to be treated.

Comments

But Matt, don't you think we should take the first step in creating a climate of liberal tolerance for all by, forgiving the Republicans and right-wingers for persecuting us?

And don't you think they'll reciprocate by turning right around and nailing our hides to the wall at their first opportunity?

Fuck these people. Not until Newt Gingrich is unable to appear in public because of the hissing and contempt rained down on his head, will it make any sense for us to forgive the right-wing hypocrites who slur us as sinners while doing worse themselves.

Posted by thag | July 13, 2007 4:17 PM

If the rumors are true about a diaper fetish (and they are being voiced by public media figures), well, then as the father of a toddler who's been changing nappies by the hundreds in aggregate, i have to say....

that's mans too damn silly to be a Senator.

Who can look h im in the face in committee without laughing

Posted by Christian | July 13, 2007 4:18 PM

I think the chants of hypocrisy are important not because I actually give a crap about Vitter either way, but because they serve to discredit the disingenuous movement he's a part of.

Posted by Jake H. | July 13, 2007 4:23 PM

"too damn silly to be a Senator"? Is there such a thing? Who can look any U.S. Senator in the face without laughing?

Posted by too many steves | July 13, 2007 4:23 PM

"Who can look any U.S. Senator in the face without laughing?"

But I was told Joe Lieberman was Serious!

Posted by Jake H. | July 13, 2007 4:25 PM

It seems as if there's always, ALWAYS a reason to move on when it comes to Republicans, but there's never, EVER a reason to move on when it comes to Democrats?

Why is that, Matt?

Posted by Garuda | July 13, 2007 4:27 PM

As much as I'd like to tar and feather Vitter to a chant of "Hypocrite, Hypocrite!" at the end of the day, if we live our morality, i.e. let his diaper fetish be his own business and give it no weight when it comes to his professional ability, at the end of it all I think we'll have done more to further the cause of tolerance and forgiveness than anything else.

Posted by Mark the Atheist | July 13, 2007 4:38 PM

Extremely reasonable! Careful logic! It's like Klassic Kinsley. (TM)

(I guess them's fighting words now. I do like careful thought though)

I'm glad that our side has the firmer grasp on human nature. I'm tired of being characterized as Lamarckian/Communist blank-slaters.

Posted by chris m | July 13, 2007 4:40 PM

Maybe hypocrisy is weak tea as far as sins are concerned.

As a man who has certain, although hidden, personal knowlege about the way that sexual temptation can make a person ignore his principles and transgress the rules that he himself understands to have been set by God and society how does he dare demand abstinence only sex education and oppose teaching young people about the need for and the benefits of condom use?

What kind of tea should we call that?

Posted by Robbie | July 13, 2007 4:40 PM

Hypocrisy is not "weak tea". There are real people in real jail because of prostitution, and prior to his scandal Vitter would never do a thing to help them. In fact, if his rhetoric is consistent with his actions, he would do everything in his power to see that they remain there. That's despicable, and I refuse to act as though my belief that prostitution should be legal absolves him of it. The prostitution isn't the issue; the issue is someone committing a crime for which he would harshly punish anyone else, were it in his power.

Posted by Freddie | July 13, 2007 4:45 PM

Remember that what hypocrisy reveals is that someone is a liar––or, if not a liar, so very conflicted about his or her own values and desires that he is unable to control his actions in a way that befits a lawmaker or a law-abiding citizen. In other words, whether Vitter (or Mark Foley) is A) guilty of being a phony, cynical, corrupt politician whose convictions and campaign slogans are tailored to rally a base of voters, or B) guilty of being so psychologically unsound and tormented that we cannot possibly trust or know who he actually is, we shouldn’t have him making important decisions on our behalf. The more rank the hypocrisy, the more we should distrust (or question the mental health) of the hypocrite. And when it comes to personal issues like sexual orientation and medical health decisions, hypocrisy is all the more disturbing and relevant because those issues are so personal and essential to each of us. If I caught Mayor Bloomberg smoking in the boys room I wouldn’t find his hypocrisy as despicable as that of someone like Vitter who essentially has made a name for himself by encouraging bigotry and the marginalization of people who, unlike him, are NOT interested in concealing who or what they actually are.

Posted by tinisoli | July 13, 2007 4:51 PM

In the second paragraph, Matt claims that the hypocrisy doesn't bother him, then spends the entire rest of the post refuting the claim. How else to read something like:

mean, who among us thinks that what the world needs is for the state to do a more vigorous job of harassing David Vitter into conforming his sex life to traditional norms? The answer, it turns out, is . . . David Vitter

or

if Vitter wants forgiveness he should come by it honestly and bring his views in line with the way he would want, personally, to be treated.

How is that not criticism of hypocrisy?

Posted by Brad L | July 13, 2007 4:52 PM

Unless and until the prostitutes themselves who Vitter frequented are no longer routinely subject to prosecution, Vitter shouln't be "absolved." It's not about run-of-the-mill hypocrisy. It's about Professional Hypocrisy - folks who loudly and publicly support criminalizing consensual sex and marginalizing other people for their sexual orientation but turn around and think that they are above the laws or mores that they claim to uphold and enforce via criminal sanctions. Vitter is the worst sort of scumbag. Not a "flawed" man who deserves a pass for common private weaknesses but a Professional Hypocrite who sought cheap political advantage in attacking others on "morals charges." Nail his ass to the wall...

Posted by brucds | July 13, 2007 5:00 PM

maybe if you were gay and had Vitter and the Vitters of the world publicly cast their fingers at you and thunderously label you the major threat to the bedrock institution of western civilization, you would have a different view of the person who himself engages in behavior that directly threatens the family far more than anything that you've ever done.

Maybe if you were gay and suffered the shame and humiliation of being treated as a second class citizen in a country that has preaches "equal protection under the law" because Vitter and the people like Vitter believe that you are too personally immoral to have your marriage union recognized by the state and enjoy the same legal status and privleges shared by others, you would have a different view of morality of the fraudulent behavior perpetrated by a person who continues to enjoy the legal status and privileges of his own marriage union while completely disregarding the vows that he entered into when he made his marriage contract with his wife and that was so ratified by the state.

But you're not gay - so it's easy for you to dismess pointing this out as "weak tea".

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | July 13, 2007 5:04 PM

look, its simple:

1-prostitution is illegal. he is a lawmaker.
2-he attacked clinton for infidelity at the same time he was unfaithful to his wife.

If there were a lawmaker busted for pot who built his career on stronger drug enforcement policy, this would be a huge deal. regardless of whether prostitution should be illegal or infidelity should be a private matter, this guy is a hypocrite lawbreaker and should not be in the upper chamber of our legislative body.

Posted by yep | July 13, 2007 5:09 PM

Dante placed the hypocrites in the Eighth Circle of Hell, surpassed in their transgressions only by outright traitors, and beneath murderers, thieves, and prostitutes.

Hypocrisy is certainly not "weak tea." It is outright fraud. And worse, fraud of conscience.

Posted by Toad | July 13, 2007 5:14 PM

There is an ethical difference between a hypocrit and a hypocrit lawmaker. A big difference.

Posted by mpowell | July 13, 2007 5:58 PM

I don't feel wronged by Vitter having purchased the services of one or more prostitutes, so it would be silly to forgive him.

I think that those Vitter implied were lying about his behavior (both Democrats and Republicans), during his election, have a legitimate grievance against him. He owes them an apology for having damaged their reputations.

Posted by RSA | July 13, 2007 6:24 PM

Re Vitter

Senator Vitter is a scumbag born-again phony whose motto is do as I say, not as I do. He deserves no consideration whatever, any more then that other scumbag born-again phony Ted Haggard did. My view is that when the enemy is on the ropes, you don't let him off. You go in and finish him off.

Posted by SLC | July 13, 2007 6:56 PM

Look, I'm all for the rehabilitation of Vitter...as soon as he has had his car confiscated, served his time, and registered as a sex offender, the way any of the rest of us would have to.

The only way to get reasonable laws is to apply them equally to the lawmakers as well as the general public. You know what they say, certainty of punishment etc etc etc

Posted by serial catowner | July 13, 2007 7:12 PM

E.J Dionne is wrong.

Larry Flynt is right.

We will not "return to a time when we -- chose to pay little attention to the extracurricular sexual activities of our politicians." unless and ultil David Vitters of this world are made to pay a price for their hypocricy.

If we turn the other cheek and let Vitter "move on" it will send a message to the other Vitters out there to continue doing what they are doing, policing our bedrooms giving themselves an exception.

No, we need to make an example of Vitter and drive him from office. Then and only then will the jihadist right learn a lesson and stop their obsession with regulating the private lives of others.

Posted by DonB | July 13, 2007 7:58 PM

"And don't you think they'll reciprocate by turning right around and nailing our hides to the wall at their first opportunity?"

This is the problem with the E.J. Dionne types on the left. They don't understand how the power game is played.

What incentive would the jihadist right have to stop doing what they have been doing we "forgive and forget"?

Does E.J Dionne think the William Bennets and John Dobsons will stop calling liberals Godless, immoral, decadent? Why would they give up a formula that has worked so well for them? Unless they are made to pay a price.

Posted by DonB | July 13, 2007 8:09 PM

Matt-you need to take a week and immerse yourself back in the Lewinski scandal-era daily newspapers and CNN reports. They tried to impeach a president for a sexual daliance.

When regular people are hypocrites, sure, it's weak tea.

When politicians are hypocrites, it's the strongest of teas, because these people are out making rules.

In fact, I would say hypocrisy is the heart of my frustration with the GOP. It's basically why I'm not a Republican. They want to have a war but they're unwilling to fight, they want sexual freedom without allowing others to have the same liberties, they reject 'handouts' and tout an 'ownership society' where people are all treated equally and must pull themselves up by their bootstraps no matter what their circumstances....and yet they themselves are the ultimate shortcut-taking anti-meritocrats with their cronyism and sweetheart deals with the judges/officials appointed by your daddy.

All that bullshit happens at the expense of the rest of us Matt. Hypocrisy is the common thread, and furthermore it's the easiest pathology for the the voting public to understand.

Nail Vitter to the wall. This has never been having sex with a prostitute per se. This is simple: if you can't follow the rules you prescribe for others, you are not a leader, you are not honest, and you do not deserve to be in the US Senate.

Posted by ssd | July 13, 2007 8:19 PM

DonB on a roll in these comments; except, even if we drive Vitter from office (not so sure about that, this is LA), there is no going back--human nature isn't going to change, and neither are the tabloids.

Posted by Andruw | July 13, 2007 8:24 PM

High profile hypocrites such as Vitter are the subject of scorn, and their fitness for leadership appropriately brought into question. But unless you are willing to start legislating what people think as opposed what people do, you can't in good conscience "nail them to the wall" for a transgression that you don't believe is in itself, worthy of punishment. At least not if you want maintain any claim to personal integrity.

Posted by Josh | July 14, 2007 3:15 AM

Ignoring the fact that you're wrong about the merits of banning prostitution, you're also ignoring the fact that this is not only about hypocrisy. This is about an inability not only to live according to one's stated ideals but is more importantly about the failure to live according to laws as far as I can tell. One is not allowed to ignore laws because one does not agree with them.
Down with the internet! Except my blog!

Posted by Wido INcognitus | July 14, 2007 5:07 AM

Oh, I forgive Vitter for his rank hypocrisy... I just think he should resign in this particular instance, since he SPECIFICALLY dealt with anti-public sex legislation. That one fact makes me want to see Vitter's political career bleeding to death in the gutter.

Posted by J R | July 14, 2007 8:59 AM

Vitter is a pimp, to echo what The Don said of Tattaglia. He doesn't matter. It's the religious/political/social movement behind him that has to be destroyed. Because of that, I don't ever want to forgive him until he publicly recants his vicious, savage ideology.

Sorry, but any progressive who thinks otherwise is a fool. Haven't we learned anything after 43 years of dealing with these mutant offspring of Barry Goldwater?

Posted by davep | July 14, 2007 10:30 AM

"As he did, so he must
Himself be done by. And that's just."
--Caesar Augustus, as quoted in I, Claudius by Robert Graves

Posted by Kip W | July 14, 2007 11:13 AM

Well thanks for lowering the bar of behavior for our "leaders' ever further.

I personally don't give a damn about anyone's sex life..

I do give a damn about the hypocrisy because it leaks over into others aspects of a hypocrits life.

Posted by Cal | July 14, 2007 12:33 PM

Man, his poor little girl. How did she ever get such a scumbag for a father?

Posted by Kyle | July 14, 2007 12:39 PM

What's the real hypocrisy here?

Prostitutes ("hookers") go to jail, whether misdemeanors or felonies. The Washington "Madame" is on the hook for several big felonies.

The "john" here, Senator Vitter, is on the hook for an "apology to his wife".

Prosecute the madame, then prosecute the john.

Posted by chew2 | July 14, 2007 12:50 PM

Another Republican robot who helped pervert the national rhetoric into a hysterical crusade against not just Bill Clinton but modern society itself, and who has consistently enabled the only US government I've ever known which I not just occasionally wondered (Reagan) but which I constantly fear will effectively end the Constitution and the nation...

...and by "forgiving" these hypocritical liars and bullies and maniacs who would just as soon burn the Constitution and all post-McKinley triumphs of US society in a giant fire of prancing hate, we are somehow returning to 'normalcy'?

No, I'm sorry, there's an extent to which we need NOT to "move on" and forget, but rather to practice a derived form of de-Nazification here, rather than seeking in our hearts to forgive the neo-fascists who would repay our favor with the closest knife in the back of sane governance.

Posted by El Cid | July 14, 2007 4:20 PM

I think the Vitter situation is a pretty good benchmark for dividing movement progressives from generally liberalish folks who fancy themselves to be oh so reasonable. The "reasonable liberal" says he doesn't like Vitter's views on social policy, and imagines that if we forgive Vitter, he - and his fellow travelers - will come around and start talking a more tolerant talk. The same, of course, was said about Bill Bennett's gambling.

The movement progressive, on the other hand, knows that the moralizing wing that forms the backbone of the conservative movement would never budge an inch, no matter how much sympathy we might show to Vitter. We know this because similar situations in the past haven't changed a thing (see, as above, Bennett) - and because strident moralizing *is* modern conservatism. It can't exist without it.

The movement progressive also knows, as many above have observed, that the Republicans would never lay off of us for any "sin" (real or imagined). We're done with the extreme reasonableness which counsels that we not hit when given the opportunity. We're done being abused.

And that's exactly it - "reasonable liberalism" can only be appealing if you are willing to be abused, to never be shown courtesies you insist on showing others. Why that appealing to anyone is beyond me.

Posted by DavidNYC | July 14, 2007 6:25 PM

The Golden Rule

"And if Vitter wants forgiveness he should come by it honestly and bring his views in line with the way he would want, personally, to be treated."

I could swear that I've heard that prinicple somewhere else, maybe phrased a little differently. Well, it must be a paraphrase of the Communist Manifesto or some other socialist or fascist tract, because the idea that a US Senator should have to treat other people as he himself would like to be treated is clearly anti-American, or at least anti-godly-American.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | July 14, 2007 11:20 PM

He should be voted out of office for his sexual hypocrisy, certainly. The press should relentless in exposing what these guys are actually about. But he shouldn't be jailed. You don't get rid of bad laws by enforcing them more, everybody just gets more scared to criticize them.

Barney Frank made it through quite the prostitution scandal while staying in office to this day, but there was not the hypocrisy issue.

Posted by mq | July 15, 2007 1:20 AM

But he shouldn't be jailed. You don't get rid of bad laws by enforcing them more, everybody just gets more scared to criticize them.

While I don't advocate criminally charging or jailing Vitter, I think the attitude expressed above is entirely wrong.

When senseless laws of personal morality are only enforced against the weak and poor, they survive forever.

When such laws are actually enforced against elites too, suddenly there arrives a realization that maybe it's time to change the laws.

So if you have regular working class men and women being arrested for acts relating to prostitution and being punished for it, you have to then demand that the same laws apply to elite figures engaging in in as well.

Something tells me that prostitution laws in DC or Louisiana would change a lot more quickly when the lawmakers felt the vice squads breathing down their necks than when they simply watched the ordinary schmucks getting busted for what they themselves do all the time.

Posted by El Cid | July 15, 2007 8:14 AM