Frumbug

Former Bush speech writer and all-around neo-con weenie David Frum wrote the following in his “diary” at the National Review Online under the heading “Hypocrites“:

Dear Diary…

A sensational but to-date unsubstantiated allegation has been hurled at a major American religious figure. On much of the left, the reaction is gleeful delight: See! He is no better than anybody else!

In my mind, however, this story highlights a widespread moral assumption that I have never been able to understand.

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

After all, the first man may well see his family and church life as his “real” life; and regard his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works.

Yet it is the first man who will if exposed be held up to the execration of the media, while the second can become a noted public character - and can even hope to get away with presenting himself as an exemplar of ethics and morality.

How does this make moral sense?

Let me put it another way:

In every other avenue of life, we praise people who rise above selfish personal wishes to champion higher principles and the public good. We admire the white southerners who in the days of segregation spoke out for racial equality. We admire the leader of a distressed industry who refuses to ask for trade protections and government handouts. We admire the Arthur Vandenbergs and (someday) the Joe Liebermans who can reach past party feeling to support a president of the opposing party for the sake of the national interest.

If a religious leader has a personal inclination toward homosexuality — and nonetheless can look past his own inclination to defend the institution of marriage and to affirm its benefits for the raising of children — why should he likewise not be honored for his intellectual firmness and moral integrity?

“I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self.”

Oh, David, David David. Where did you find these two straw men you’re talking about? These are two extremes, neither of which accurately represents poor innocent Mr. Haggard. Why not talk about a man who, frightened by his feelings, marries, raises kids and does all he can to harm the lives of the people who are brave enough to admit to those feelings themselves? That’s what matters here, Dave. It would be sad to me if Haggard had married, raised kids, and just denied his true feelings (if they turn out to be true, of course). What makes this ugly (and, no, I am not “gleeful” over any of this matter) is that he has cowardly and hypocritically chosen to not just deny his feelings, but to promote the gay-bashing agenda. His whole professional life has apparently been an attempt to say, “Queer? Me? No way! Look how much I hate queers!”

Not all gay men hire prostitutes and use illicit drugs. I wouldn’t be surprised if one or two straight men did that, by the way. If Haggard had learned to respect himself, maybe he’d have spent the past twenty or thirty years in a healthy relationship with a nice guy — a nice Christian boy. They could come live in the Glorious PRM and get married, just like any loving couple. They could even open a church together if they really wanted to.

But if you’d rather talk about your two naughty boys as if they’re the only possibilities, fine. I’d say (surprise!) that bad boy #2 is the more moral of the two, assuming the “traditional moral principles” he vilifies are the ones that involve labeling him as sick or evil. He’s being honest with himself and about himself.

Bad boy #1, on the other hand, is the kind of hypocrite who makes millions of children hate themselves. He’s the cause of pain, suffering and suicide for people who aren’t quite as good as he is at lying to themselves and others.

You suggest that your closet case is encouraging people to “lead stable lives.” It’s becoming increasingly clear to people that a life of denying one’s true self is not stable, no matter how hard one tries. Moreover, if you want to imply that the life of a homosexual is unstable, maybe it would be a good idea to think about why that might be. Do you think it could have anything to do with living in a society that marks you as sick, a sinner, someone not deserving of the full rights enjoyed by others? How would you like it if your very identity were to be described by society at large as “deviation, sin, and error”?

You ask why #1 should “not be honored for his intellectual firmness and moral integrity.” (heh. you said “firmness”) I’ll tell you why. He’s not overcoming his desire to kill people. Being gay is not (at least according to the US Supreme Court) criminal. All he’s doing is perpetuating a collection of ugly myths and harming people, and when he makes use of his power, position and connections to try to codify that ugliness, he is hurting everyone. And the more he has to work to “overcome” those feelings, the more he has to prove to himself and others that he’s not one of those people, the more harm he’s going to do.

Finally, this suggestion absolutely astonishes me: “Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue — or at least as a mitigation of his offense?” Absofuckinglutely no! For one thing, hypocrisy need not be considered the “ultimate sin,” but let’s recognize that it’s not a good thing, no matter what one’s intentions are. But let’s think of this concept a little more broadly. This is the neo-con/Bushy apologist’s entire philosophy. Why are we in Iraq? We’ve gone through a series of excuses, none of which mean a lot, but they’re not the point. The people who took us there wanted to invade Iraq. It doesn’t matter what excuse they give us for doing it; they know better than we do, and lying to us is probably our fault rather than theirs. We aren’t smart enough to get the real reason, whatever it might be, so they simply had to lie to us.

Why are they taking away our rights? We don’t need to know the real reason. They’re protecting us. Sure, they’re insisting that they’re not spying on Americans, they’re not torturing anyone, they’re not shirking our international responsibilities. They have to lie to us. But they know best. They have to be hypocrites. It’s for our own good.

No tags for this post.