The habit of ‘destroying the distinctions between public and private lives’

July 13, 2007

Sen. David Vitter’s (R-La.) sex scandal has grown increasingly lurid in the days since he admitted using the services of the DC Madam. It wasn’t a one-time mistake for Vitter, he took Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s calls during roll-call votes in Congress, and he apparently paid for sex quite a bit back in Louisiana. All the while, he was a moral crusader for “traditional” family values, condemning those whose morality failed to meet his high standards. The state GOP is already considering plans to replace him.

The WaPo’s E. J. Dionne Jr. has an interesting column today in which he notes Vitter’s offensive failings, but argues that we should all give him a collective pass, not because he’s earned it, but because Dionne would like to see politicians’ personal lives remain private.

The magnitude of our public problems does not afford us the luxury of indulging in crusades about politicians’ private lives, even those involving a high degree of hypocrisy. […]

The essential point … is that believing in a wall between the public and the private makes you a traditionalist, not a libertine. The traditionalist embraces a strict moral code but sees it as best enforced in the personal realm. We should judge public figures by how they meet their public responsibilities, and leave it to spouses, pastors, children and friends to praise or punish their private behavior. […]

Typically, we make fun of public figures who seek our sympathy by admitting to “sin.” But maybe a politician who admits to sin gains a certain degree of humility in the process. Let’s grant Vitter our collective absolution and move on.

I’d like to. Really, I would. One could make a reasonable argument that Vitter’s adultery case is unusual because he’s paying for sex, which is a criminal matter, but even that’s not terribly interesting to me.

Once again, however, it gets back to hypocrisy for me. If Vitter (and his fellow misbehaving conservative ideologues) are ready to make private conduct off-limits, I’d be delighted. But I don’t think they are.

Consider an imaginary, truncated press conference, held by the senator.

Vitter: We need more government regulation of private, personal matters! What people do in their bedrooms is everyone’s business! We must protect families from those who would undermine traditional marriages! Those who sin are a disgrace and should not hold public office! We need more laws, more shame, more outrage! Those who disagree with me are threatening America’s future! And-

Aide: Senator, there’s a call for you from a reporter. Something about the DC Madam?

Vitter: Like I was saying, private lives must be kept private! We have more important things to do than to worry about personal sexual matters!

I genuinely appreciate where Dionne is coming from. In fact, I think the majority of Americans may have prurient curiosities when it comes to public figures, but voters probably end up judging elected officials on their job performance, not their personal lives.

But Vitter and those who share his right-wing ideology have spent the last generation telling us that we have to care. That the wall between the public and the private must be broken down. It’s generous to suggest progressives give up now and cut Vitter some slack, but this isn’t just about schadenfreude and scoring cheap political points. It’s about holding the right to the standards it sets for the rest of society.

Tell you what. I’ll gladly give up mocking “family-values” Republicans who get caught in humiliating personal scandals, if Republicans are prepared to take everyone’s personal lives off the policy table. That means no more demagoguery about gays in the military, no more votes on constitutional amendments regulating personal behavior, no more standing in the way of access to contraception, etc.

If we’re going to rebuild the wall between the public and the private, then fine, let’s rebuild the wall. What do you say, conservatives?

I agree completely. When your whole policy focus is on other people’s private lives (“family values,” as some call it) you open your own private life to public scrutiny. If we could just focus on the simple business of governing the country I wouldn’t care who was doing what to whom (as long as it’s legal, that is).

  • “We have more important things to do than to worry about personal sexual matters!”

    I guess he forgot about Bill Clinton, Ken Starr and the Clinton Project?

    Or that hit job in the NYT last year on Bill and Hils marriage which nothing to do with their policy positions?

  • Once again, however, it gets back to hypocrisy for me. — CB

    Exactly that and only that.

  • This example, and the stark contradiction between it and the media’s collective behavior during the Clinton years, makes it so perfectly clear that journalists like Dionne and Tucker Carlson don’t really want us to stay out of the private lives of politicians so much as they want us to stay out of the private lives of Republicans.

    Only they can’t say that because it reveals how they are really biased.

    This is not to mention how Vitter brought this upon himself by personally advocating this kind of political exposure of other people’s personal lives (namely, Democrats’).

  • No, that’s not a good compromise. I’m not per se much interested in politician’s private lives, but hypocrisy is something I do want to know about, as it is a flaw that pops up unpleasantly in other areas besides sex. It’s something that will cause me to vote against a politician. However, except for occasional instances like Fred Thompson’s red truck, you are most likely to learn about it through knowledge of the politician’s private life.

  • I emaild Dionne this morning:

    Mr. Dionne,

    In some ways I can agree with your view, but your conclusion is way off base. You state: “But maybe a politician who admits to sin gains a certain degree of humility in the process. Let’s grant Vitter our collective absolution and move on.” All I can say is “um, no.” Until such time that Mr. Vitter shows true humility and has shown that he has learned form this experience (possibly by rethinking and adjusting his views on gay civil rights and on whether amnesty should be granted to fellow law breakers such as illegal immigrants “who have not served a day in prison,” and by coming to the defense of Democratic pols who are faced with similar allegations, or by maybe coming out and saying he was wrong to judge Clinton the way he did) there is absolutely no reason to grant Mr. Vitter absolution and to move on. Folks like Vitter are mere greedy users, concerned only with themselves, and Mr. Vitter has not performed one act as of yet that would indicate he has been humbled or that he has learned anything. There is a long and infamous line of GOP pols who fall into this category (Gingrich, Delay, etc.) who say they have seen the light but come right back and slam Dems even more–and Vitter is of a similar mold–and Dems have been sucked in by their phony and short-lived humility way too many times. Remember, the fact that he ‘came clean’ was not due to some gracious act of his own born out of humility but was instead a defensive posture made necessary due to the fact he was going to be outed. I am all for forgiveness, but that forgiveness must be earned. Maybe Vitter can set the new example by publicly and even-handedly extolling the virtues you lay out in your piece. But until then, he deserves nothing.

  • Typically, we make fun of public figures who seek our sympathy by admitting to “sin.” But maybe a politician who admits to sin gains a certain degree of humility in the process. Let’s grant Vitter our collective absolution and move on.

    I think by doing this we ecnourage a permanent infantilism and a moral irresponsibility, no better than the church’s allowing the rich to pay to have their sins taken away back in the bad old days- the result?- the rich would do any bad they wanted to, and then go and pay a few nickels and dimes for it, because the priest said it’s ok.

    Growing up is about living up to the highest standards you can reasonably set for yourself the best you can. We shouldn’t encourage people, and of all people our leaders, to be weak and be less than they can be.

  • I mentioned this in a response to the previous item, but it’s more appropriate here.

    O’Leilly ought to look at a poll they’re taking over at 365Gay (“Today’s Poll” button at the bottom of the page). The question is “Who are more likely to be kinky? Republicans or Democrats”. At the moment the results show 76% saying Republicans, 11% Democrats and 13% Don’t Know.

  • If we’re going to rebuild the wall between the public and the private, then fine, let’s rebuild the wall. What do you say, conservatives?

    I have a question… Why would you believe anything a “conservative” says in response to this question? They’re hypocrites. Hypocrites lie for a living.

    I can’t wait to drown the GOP in the bathtub after they get shrunk down to size in 2008. After that we can talk to whoever’s left about putting our private lives back where they belong.

  • Get ready to jump on me because you are missing my point.

    Vitter is a jerk for a lot of reasons. His wife is either stupid or a hypocrite too. How could she not have paid attention to all of the gossip about him going to prostitutes in Louisiana.

    Now, changing topics to John Edwards. He preaches two nations, a rich and a poor and then gets $400 hair cuts and makes a fortune from hedge funds.

    Isn’t Edwards being hypocritical?

    Now, I don’t think Edwards is doing anything wrong. But then I shop at Wal-Mart.

    My point is how can a Democrat who cares about the well being of middle America answer the charges of being a hypocrite?

    Gore is dumped on for his 20,000 square foot house and using a private plane. Is that hypocritical?

    It is easy to pick on a bunch of Democrats for positions that seem hypocritical.

    How is a Democrat supposed to respond?

    Don’t forget that any Democrat needs a significant portion of the center to get elected. If you play to you base and annoy the center then we might get stuck with President Thompson.

  • The hypocrisy isn’t the most important angle to me. Here’s how I feel about it:

    Anytime a reporter uncovers evidence that a senator has been consorting with prostitutes, that is news in and of itself, important news, even if no prior public hypocrisy about family values is involved. For the simple reason that, if a reporter uncovered it today, someone else could have uncovered it yesterday. In all likelihood, someone looking for dirt on the senator. Possibly a bad guy. And it wouldn’t matter if the bad guy’s name was Karl Rove or Jack Abramoff or something else.

    Senators who consort with prostitutes leave themselves open to blackmail. It’s really as simple as that. Most senators would do almost anything to keep their dirty secret. And if someone else is controlling a U.S. senator (or a governor or a cabinet member or any other significant politician), does it matter one bit if the underlying mechanism is bribery or blackmail?

    This, by the way, is also the reason why Presidents should not have oral (or any other) sex with White House interns. Imagine if Linda Tripp had taken her little recordings to Bill Clinton, and said: “Now listen very carefully, Mr. President, …”

    As long as public figures can be blackmailed about they do in their private lives, you cannot build a wall between the two.

  • I’d happily give Vitter a pass, if the wingnuts who demand ‘morality’ from the left demanded the same from their own. But since there’s no sense in holding my breath for the demise of IOKIYR, I’ll take the pass.

    Just to keep things in perspective, when Clinton got a blow job – something that nearly every man, gay or straight, enjoys – Vitter got the vapors. Meanwhile, he was paying prostitutes to put him in diapers, a fetish that most people find truly bizarre. Now, just imagine how the right would have reacted if Clinton had Vitter’s sexual impulses. They crafted a constitutional crisis out of oral sex between consenting adults. If it had been hookers and diapers, they’d still be screeching about it.

  • Neil, your Edwards analogy is all wrong. He’s not preaching about the wonderfulness of being poor, about how we should all aspire to be poor and homeless and uninsured; he’s trying to drum up support for lifting those people who are poor into the ranks of those who are not.

    You don’t have to be poor in order to have any credibility on the issues that affect the poor. Given that Edwards was not born into wealth, he may know more about it than someone like John Kerry or Ted Kennedy, for example, but having money and doing good works for those who have less than you do is not hypocritical, it’s charitable.

    On the subject of values and things that pertain to the personal lives of individuals, preaching one set of values and living by another is hypocritical, and if a person is going to stand on moral high ground, his or her life better be able to stand up to scrutiny.

    I realize that it probably does take an enormous amount of ego to put yourself into public life, and those who are the most successful at it are able to retain a level of humility that keeps them from thinking that the rules are for other, less special people. Clearly, Vitter has let his ego engulf any humility he might have had, and allowed him to think he was above scrutiny.

    Live and learn.

  • First, I can’t say give him a pass – he broke the law. That’s a serious matter even if one thinks prostitutuion should be legal – since right now it’s not.

    However, I’m all for putting this wall back for all of us. The Repulbican party as a whole can make some announcement that they feel there should be more privacy about such things, major Republicans can sign off on it, and Republican mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh can back it up.

    Then it’ll be off the table.

    Until then I say we keep viciously outing these sanctimonus hypocrites.

  • I’ll agree to keep private lives private as soon as the mainstream media highlights the hypocrisy of men who screamed for blood during the Clinton impeachment circus while cheating on their wives and paying prostitutes for kinky sex at the very same time. But I want the connection to lead in print and and on the air. I want it drummed into the public consciousness: these are the same men who were shocked, SHOCKED, by Bill Clinton’s dirty deeds. These men insisted upon impeachment, tried to bring down a competent and popular president, and subjected the nation to endless news stories about the presidential genitalia. These men – these prostitute-paying, diaper-wearing, wife-betraying men – attacked Bill Clinton for his private failings.

    Until the depth of their moral and ethical bankruptcy is driven home to the American public, there can be no truce. But once the point is made, I’m all for slamming the bedroom door.

  • There’s a trend here: Republicans insist for years that private morality is important. They make repeated attempts to codify their version of morality into law. Now the leading Republican candidate is Rudy Giuliani, an adulterer, among other moral failings. If the leading Democrat had Rudy’s record the Republicans would be shouting from the housetops that personal morality determines public character. E.J. Dionne, and the rest of the pundits, would be writing that the Democrat’s marital infidelity “raises troubling questions.”

    Whether it’s morality or benchmarks for Iraq, when the Republicans fail they insist that we all just move on and the press not only gives them a pass, it helps them with their excuses.

  • E. J. Dionne Jr.:

    The magnitude of our public problems does not afford us the luxury of indulging in crusades about politicians’ private lives, even those involving a high degree of hypocrisy.

    Oh.

    That means E.J. is a believer in situational ethics.

    Which is fine.
    But let’s not hide that baseline fact in the closet.
    Really E.J… you should shove it at us in bold:

    E. J. Dionne believes that different situations demand the application of different rules of ethics.

    Now all you right-wingers who believe that E. J. Dionne is correct, stand up and explain to me why you support situational ethics.

    I am waiting…

    Like the name says:

  • Anne wrote: “You don’t have to be poor in order to have any credibility on the issues that affect the poor.”

    Too true; I’ve had this same argument with people on this site before. Somehow people seem to get drawn to the conclusion that if you’re wealthy, you’ve demonstrated that you don’t care about the poor.

    Not that I’m particularly Biblical, but those right-wingers who make these sort of arguments should go back and read their Bible, for Jesus was evidently a ‘hypocrite’ of the type they think John Edwards is, at least according to Judas (from John 12):

    Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

    But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

    “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. ” It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

    (By the way, I learned about this exchange from watching Jesus Christ Superstar.)

  • Prostitution and drug use are not going away. They are right up there with death and taxes(this doesnt apply to many rich people). Legalize, regulate, and tax both and we will have more revenue and less collateral crime and violence. Having acknowleged mistresses, legalized prostitution, and less draconian drug laws has not destroyed the moral fiber of western Europe. No harm, no foul is the way to go.

    The Puritans left England because nobody could stand them. Let’s ship ours off to Atlantis.

  • “They crafted a constitutional crisis out of oral sex between consenting adults. If it had been hookers and diapers, they’d still be screeching about it.”

    Joe, they have stopped screeching about it?

  • It’s the hypocrisy, plain and simple. Which the Republican talking-heads like Tucker Carlsen and others just don’t get.

  • Sex (consensual, between adults) and religion. Both should be private. And, as long as someone doesn’t insist on dragging them into the public view, I don’t mind letting it remain private. But, if you parade your superiority — of either sexual morals or your religious devotion — then you’re setting yourself as a fair game. And I’ll be happy to join the hunt.

  • I would be fine with politicians private lives stay private but they won’t stop using everyone elses for political point – homosexuality “issues”, abortion, premarital sex, divorce, etc. – all those “family values” issues. Then there is just the general hypocrisy. Makes my stomach ache.

  • This can be boiled down to a simple statement: “I’ll stay out of his bedroom when he stays out of mine”. These people refuse to respect our privacy. I’m sorry — this is self-defense: demanding a freedom that he denies us demands the harshest of responses. It’s not just hypocrisy — it’s injustice when it coming from our “representatives”.

  • I saw that piece in the paper to day and grrrrrr!

    Everyone’s already covered the hypocrisy angle so I’ll address Dionne’s assumption that Vitter saying that he has sinned gives him a certain humility or what have you.

    How can Dionne look at a santimonious bastard who lied to his wife and lied by omission to his voters and think “Well he said he sinned so he must be telling the truth! Give me a fucking break E.J. The only reason Tender-Vitters said anything was because he was forced to.

    Dan Savage ran a great piece on outing people who actively support homophobia (I’m against outing but this guy is a dick). An exerpt:

    Tyler Whitney is an up-and-coming conservative activist. Just 18 years old, Whitney is working for the GOP’s most rabidly antigay presidential candidate, Tom Tancredo, as webmaster; he heads up an antigay political group on his college campus; and he carried a “Go Back in the Closet!” sign at an antigay protest. Which is odd, since Whitney is gay and has recently been outed.

    Well, not outed, exactly. Whitney had begun quietly coming out to a few friends when a blog, the Michigan Conservative Dossier, posted an item about him that hurried his coming-out process along. Then Between the Lines, Michigan’s gay newspaper, published a story, which was picked up by national gay bloggers. Now everybody knows Whitney likes boys.

    Predictably, conservatives are rallying around their pet self-hating homo. Bay Buchanan, an adviser to Tancredo, says Whitney’s “sexual preference is a personal matter” and that it should have “nothing to do with the campaign.”

    Sorry, Bay, but gay-bashing thugs—people like you, your horrible brother Pat, your vile candidate—can’t have it both ways. If Whitney’s sexual preference is a personal matter, then so is mine. If Whitney’s sexual preference shouldn’t have anything to do with the campaign, then neither should mine—nor should the sexual preference of any other American. But so long as the GOP attacks gay Americans, Whitney’s sexuality—and his hypocrisy—has everything to do with the campaign.

  • As a very conservative Louisiana Republican, I’ll tell you that the hypocrisy goes beyond what has been discussed. Nobody likes David Vitter. He has no friends. He is one of the most ruthlessly ambitious politicians I have ever seen.

    There are a lot of Republicans in Louisiana who are enjoying his fall, myself included (though I do feel sorry for Wendy Vitter). He deserves it. To the people who are hoping that this teaches him some humility, I can only say that I doubt that will happen.

    Anyway, the last time I checked, soliciting prostitution is a crime. That is not a “private” matter, not his “personal life,” any more than Bill Clinton’s perjury under oath was his “personal life.” So why have have I, and other Louisiana Republicans, failed to publicly call for Vitter to resign? Why am I not firing off emails to members of the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee calling for his removal from office? There are two reasons:

    1) Governor Blanco is a Democrat. There is no way that we are going to turn that senate seat over to the Democratic Party for the next three years.

    2) Being the ambitious pol that he is, I know that Vitter would never resign, and he will work hard to regain his power, and I don’t want him to ruin my political future, which he surely would.

    So, I admit to hypocrisy. If this came out a year later, with Bobby Jindal as governor, you’d see a different ballgame from the GOP. It’s about power.

    But, please, let’s not pretend this hypocrisy is something that’s Republican. Here in Louisiana, voters just last year put Democrat Bill Jefferson back in Congress after the feds found $92,000 stuffed in his freezer. Our Democratic Commissioner of Agriculture was reelected in 2003 (and is going for another term) despite being indicted in 2002 on charges of extortion, bribery, and theft. Democratic members of the New Orleans School Board have just been indicted for bribery. Our state put Democrat Edwin Edwards back in the governor’s mansion in 1991 with the slogan “Vote for the Crook — it’s important.” He and a number of Democratic state lawmakers were later found guilty after an 1995 FBI investigation involving gambling contracts, and he continues to reside in federal prison. Democratic state senator (and former congressman) Cleo Fields remains in office despite FBI video of him personally accepting a big bag of cash from Edwards during that time.

    I could go on, but I hope you get the point. All of this was tolerated with nary a complaint by the Louisiana Democratic Party. In fact, We Louisiana Republicans are not more hypocritical than our Democratic counterparts. Nobody wants to lose their political power.

    So, just give up the “Republicans are hypocrites” line. It’s just hypocritical to say.

  • #27

    No one ever said there weren’t Democrats who break the law. Just as no one has said that all Republicans are hypocrites. The difference is that Vitter and many of the other “family values” congressmen and senators came into office and told us they were for a higher moral standard. They then failed to meet their own standard.

    They lie, steal and commit adultary. That’s 3 out of 10 Commandments. If I believed in Hell, I’d be happy to send them there for all time and let them explain how they came to break something many of them want us all to follow while posting the Commandments in all public buildings.

    Bill Jefferson was condemned by the Democrats for his actions and referred to the Ethics Committee. Gingrich, DeLay and others tried to change to rules over and over again to get around paying for their crimes. When it became obvoius that Ronnie Earl had DeLay dead to rights, DeLay ran and hid claiming he had the high moral ground.

    I expect elected officials to set a high standard and live up to it. The “family values” crowd wasn’t satisfied with that and asked for more, then failed to live up to even the minimum that I would expect.

    I’m glad that you admit your motives for keeping Vitter in office. You are honest. But many of the “family values” crowd don’t seem to come anywhere near you level of honesty.

  • this isn’t just about schadenfreude and scoring cheap political points. It’s about holding the right to the standards it sets for the rest of society.

    Word.

  • Madstork said, “The difference is that Vitter and many of the other “family values” congressmen and senators came into office and told us they were for a higher moral standard. They then failed to meet their own standard.”

    And how is this different from the hypocrisy of the many Louisiana Democrats I mentioned who were elected on promises to help the “little guy” and then used the office to make themselves rich?

    • Comments are closed.