Site Meter Reflections on Playboy: Mark Foley is a hypocrite—and not one of the good ones

October 4, 2006

Mark Foley is a hypocrite—and not one of the good ones

“Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue,” said François de la Rochefoucauld. Conservative intellectuals frequently use this quotation to defend hypocrisy as a way for morally fallible human beings to pay lip service to the good even when they lack the strength to live it. For example, a congregation is none the less wise to accept the preacher’s advice against stealing when said preacher turns out to have a shoplifting habit. The defense applies to some instances of hypocrisy, but not all. Former Congressman Mark Foley’s instant-messaging scandal is one that, in my opinion, La Rochefoucauld’s argument cannot redeem.

The distinction between “good” and “bad” hypocrisy hinges on whether the act proscribed (and perpetrated) by the hypocrite is truly wrong or merely a target of moral panic. The closet homosexual who beats up known or suspected homosexuals is becoming an unambiguous example of the latter category in the United States. In my last post, I deplored our society’s general treatment of teenagers as children rather than adults. Foley’s online paramour has reached the age of consent in the District of Columbia and most states (but not my home state of California, which doesn’t deserve its reputation for social liberalism). The affair may be somewhat irresponsible because of the interpersonal tension it could generate in a work environment, but it shouldn’t be a crime. And yet it is a crime, thanks to the karmically challenged Foley. At Reason Online, Kerry Howley explains:
If charges are leveled, they’ll likely be based on broad legislation inked by the man himself. It’s a safe bet that any law with a kid’s name in it will overreach, and the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is no exception. The law, a hodgepodge of a response to MySpace panic, strikes at everything from hawking “date rape drugs” over the tubes to the use of “misleading domain names.” It penalizes the solicitation of all minors—everyone under 18—despite the fact that the age of consent is two years lower in most states. Merely channeling an invitation through the magic of fiberoptic cables is a federal crime.
Bill Clinton was similarly hoist with his own petard: the resurgent feminism that helped get him elected in 1992 also wrote the overreaching sexual-harassment law that later threatened his presidency. One need not be conservative or religious to hypermoralize.

Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 5:56 PM

  • Anonymous jay left this comment at October 6, 2006 3:55 AM  
    The difference between Clinton and Foley is that Clinton engaged with a consenting adult. Big difference there.

  • Blogger Brian Sorgatz left this comment at October 6, 2006 4:55 AM  
    jay,
    Not true! The age of consent is 16 in the District of Columbia. I don’t believe in treating post-pubescent teenagers as children. Don’t forget that the Clinton-haters tried to play the moral-outrage card by calling Monica Lewinsky a “girl.” Unlike some feminists, I have no objection in principle to referring to a young woman by that term. But in context, their use of it then was obviously opportunistic.

  • Blogger TerraPraeta left this comment at October 6, 2006 10:14 AM  
    Once more, I totally agree ith you Brian. The recurrance of the term 'pedophilia' in this discussion makes my teeth rattle! To suggest that there is ANY similairity between abusing a pre-pubescent child and being attracted to a young adult simply serves to make pedophilia less aberrant.

    Strange that we got off on such a poor footing, when so much of our thinking is similair.

    Cheers!

    tp

  • Blogger Brian Sorgatz left this comment at October 6, 2006 10:59 AM  
    tp,
    Yes, I lost my temper and got snarky towards the end of our debate about Steven Pinker, and I am sorry about that. To explain, though not to excuse, I’ve had a habit of thinking myself a victim of some of the intellectual laziness and dishonesty that I see Pinker as the most powerful antidote for. The wounded dignity of my adolescence and early adulthood seemed to be at stake. Just before I read your last comment, I finished an article in the October Playboy about a deadly fraternity hazing at California State University, Chico. The author applied evolutionary psychology—sagely, in my opinion—to the hazing problem. I couldn’t help wondering how many deaf ears this important article would fall on because of political correctness. How long will anti-intellectualism keep it dangerous to be born with a Y chromosome? I’m not still trying to win the argument. I just want to show how personally I take the debate, rightly or wrongly.

    I confess that after my last comment on the Pinker thread, I avoided the thread so that I could pretend I got the last word in. I still haven’t checked back. Does that make me a coward?

  • Blogger TerraPraeta left this comment at October 6, 2006 5:48 PM  
    It makes you human.

    We all have something that we are a tad irrational about. When someone can step up and ackowledge thier own -- that's when I am impressed :-)

    tp

  • Blogger Brian Sorgatz left this comment at October 7, 2006 10:56 AM  
    tp,
    Thank you.

    • Post a Comment

    « Home

    Create a Link