I was busy with paying work when news of the Souder resignation broke. It’s been maybe 9 or 10 hours, and it already feels like old news. But, it seems momentous enough that I figure I should comment.
Souder has been committing adultery with one of his staff members (female), and he got caught. Because he got caught, he is resigning. The rumor I heard was that a newspaper was sniffing around about Souder and his mistress getting caught having sex in a public park. But, I hasten to add, if this has been confirmed, I haven’t seen it yet. (TPM Muckraker has a story on this – they say that DNR searched its records and didn’t find an official record.)
Sanctimonious public officials grate on me, so it’s somewhat satisfying when a little petard hoisting sends them packing. But my amusement at this sort of thing is tempered by the realization that Souder isn’t some abstract character in a story. He’s a real person with, and this is the important part, a real family. His family members are no doubt hurting from this, and I have no particular cause to wish them ill.
So, in the course of 5 years, we are seeing a dramatic sea change in Indiana’s Congressional delegation. Of the 11 Representatives and Senators representing Indiana in 2006, only Senator Lugar, Mike Pence, Dan Burton (barely), and Pete Visclosky (if a corruption investigation doesn’t bring him down) seem likely to be serving in 2011. Sen. Bayh is stepping down. Chris Chocola was defeated by Joe Donnelly. Steve Buyer is resigning ostensibly to take care of his wife, but also under the cloud of his sketchy Frontier Foundation funding. Julia Carson passed away in 2007 and was replaced by her grandson, Andre. John Hostetler was beaten by Brad Ellsworth. And Mike Sodrel was beaten by Baron Hill.
I’ve already seen one of the standard defenses to the sanctimonious hypocrite scandal. It goes something like, “it’s not wrong for someone like Mark Souder to proclaim the sanctity of marriage and good, wholesome values even if he falls short in his personal life.” I’m always puzzled by the lack of concern for integrity this defense implies. It’s enough, apparently, that a public figure says the right things about morality and pretends to believe those things because hearing those things and seeing the pretense is “good for us” somehow.
The problem, as I see it, is with condemnation of those who don’t necessarily speak the approved words about proper morality or engage in the pretense that everyone adheres (or should adhere) to that particular code.
If the family values crowd characterized their version of morality as worthy aspirations instead of imperatives, the departure from which is sinful, I would probably agree. And if guys like Souder said that these aspirations were good ideas that he, personally, was lousy at attaining, I wouldn’t have much to hold over his head right now. But there seems to be a judgment of unworthiness applied to others who are not members of the tribe that is rarely applied as vigorously to folks like Souder.
Now, at least, Souder appears prepared to honor his term limit pledge about four years late. Maybe that will allow him to focus on whatever marital pledges he may have made.
And yet, Souder’s situation is a shining example of why we should all strive for some type of reasonably moral existence. Although, I should add that I’m torn here, because Souder’s destructive behavior yielded exactly the end result I wanted, he’s gone.
There’s a lot of variation in what you call “the sanctimonious hypocrite scandal.” Nobody can legitimately brand all sinners as hypocrites if they profess a standard to which they don’t always measure up.
In no particular order, here are some variants taken mostly from the world of politics:
1. The total B.S. artist who doesn’t believe a word of it but thinks his political base wants to hear it.
2. The believer in standards who can’t (yet) live up to them and violates them pretty regularly. If he’s scrupulous, he’ll not speak of himself as an exemplar. If he’s Catholic or Orthodox, he’ll be at the confessional a lot. If caught, he will, like Souder, acknowledge sin (or whatever the secular equivalent is) and not excuse himself – whether or not he falls on his sword. Jimmie Swaggart may fit this mold, too.
3. The sociopath, who may or may not believe it but certainly thinks that he and his circumstance are special exceptions. Think Governor Sanford, whose comments I registered as “because I’m such a good Christian, I’m going to try to patch things up with this loser, Jenny, even though my Argentine hottie is my true soul mate, so that my calculated adultery is an understandable exception to the sexual rules I espouse for y’all. I was just exercising my ‘right to be happy.'”
4. The true believer who may, in a moment of weakness, nevertheless fall. I have the great good fortune not to have hot women pursuing me because of that great aphrodisiac, power. I’m not sure what would happen were I not so lucky.
In my opinion, as someone who adheres seriously to the Christian faith and all that implies, I see a lot of #2 and #4 in myself (though my weaknesses don’t especially include sex). My Lord conspicuously said He came to seek and to save that which was lost, and that the righteous have no need of a physician. Sin, transgressions and infirmities are part of being human, not part of being a hypocrite.
#1 and #3, on the other hand, richly deserve the epithet “hypocrite” for putting on a mask and feigning belief or in exempting themselves from standards.
I guess what I’m looking for is an acknowledgment that failing to live up to these moral standards is pretty normal. And, I’d like that acknowledgment to be featured fairly prominently when the desirability of those moral standards are proclaimed. And, I’d like that acknowledgment to be made before the public servant in question is caught failing.
My sense is that many would-be champions of morality are attempting to persuade with guilt more than reason and that guilt becomes a less effective tool if you publicly and prominently recognize the normalcy of failing to live up to these moral failings.
I’m thinking in terms of “Only bad teens and unmarried people have sex” versus “Lots of teens and unmarried people have sex, but it’s a bad idea: here’s why” or whatever the particular moral standard in question might be. I guess I say that as to “morality” generally. You get into specifics, like cheating on your wife, and I think it’s abnormal oath breaking that should be condemned in no uncertain terms. So, I don’t suppose I’m opposed to all sanctimony.
I have to disagree with your conclusion, Roger. All four are hypocrites. Why?
Number two is worse than number four. He only is sorry – that he got caught. I’m not a big fan of “confessional sinners”. They are almost number 3s, but they just have some internal need to have someone else “make their little boo-boo all go away”.
Number four doesn’t get a pass either. If one wants to ride the high horse of the moral high ground, when one falls off that horse, one needs to step up to the plate, admit to it, and resign. Not wait until the office/town gossips turns you in to your senior staffers.
Truly, I don’t hold it against anyone who falls short of their own ideals. But, after listening to years of “holier-than-thou” pontifications from that person, I expect that person to man up and give up the keys to the tower, without being told, or made to.
When did Daniels first know about Souder’s indiscretions? How long before the 5-04-10 primary taking place?
The radio call-ins to WOWO yesterday, who voted for Souder on 5-04-10, felt as if they were wrongfully used.
Of course I can brand all “sinners” as hypocrites for not living up to (publicly professed and politically manipulated) standards. Any number of Christians brand me as worse for the sin of not agreeing with their metaphysics.
I don’t do so, because I try to stay bemused by my proud and profoundly silly species, at least until the bullets fly, the drilling platforms explode, or they close Keystone Avenue to built more stupid roundabouts. What’s disagreeable here is not that Mark Souder failed to live up to his own moral code or ethical standards; it’s that he is a man who earned a substantial pile of public monies and tax-free donations urging that code be forced on others. It’s that as soon as he faces exposure he can come out an “confess”–with a sideswipe at the “culture of Washington” he’s basked in for two terms longer than he thought anyone else should–and be treated as though he was atoning rather than staying one step ahead of the posse. It’s that, as always for these guys, it’s suddenly a personal issue, while 48 hours ago Souder was holy and wise enough to prescribe the behavior of all Americans. It’s the religious version of privatizing profits and socializing debt.
“What’s disagreeable here is not that Mark Souder failed to live up to his own moral code or ethical standards; it’s that he is a man who earned a substantial pile of public monies and tax-free donations urging that code be forced on others. ”
How did Souder try to force abstinence on others?
Politicians talking about sex — it’s a lot like the magician with the scantily clad (dare I say ‘special’) assistant. She’s there to distract your attention. When she starts prancing around watch what he does with his left hand, the game is afoot.
I don’t much care about Mr. Souder — he’ll soon be replaced, and probably with somebody even farther right. But I’d like to hear a lot less about sex in the realm of (ahem) ‘public affairs’, and more about areas where governmental policy actually matters.
Hindsight being 20-20, of course, perhaps he could have spent more time worrying about his own marriage and less time worrying about mine.