Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Sex and Relationships

Why the Left Looks Like a Big Hypocrite in the Sanford Affair

By JoAnn Wypijewski, The Nation. Posted July 3, 2009.


Sanford is no more of a moralist than those in the party of Barack and Bill, the party of "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

It's hard loving a married man. One who is far away, with a life structured by family and history and expectation, who dreams of freedom but needs the chains.

It's hard being that needed chain, the wife, icon of the known world, blameless victim whose sympathizers nevertheless cannot help daubing with the colors of failure.

Poor thing...

It's not supposed to be hard being the married man with the lover and the wife and the life. That's the life! -- until he gets caught. Then the slurs come swiftly, predictably: narcissist, cheater, hypocrite, pig.

In the latest political sex scandal, which isn't a scandal at all but a circumstance as old and common as time, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, Jenny Sanford and María Belén Chapur have provided an edifying example of pain as a condition of life, love as both a drowning pool and sustaining spring, adultery as the monogamy system's disowned twin. And all that liberals can talk about is what a fraud he is. No sooner had Sanford made his forced confession than the knees of the righteous, in this case Rachel Maddow, Maureen Dowd and legions of Democratic water-carriers-cum-bloggers, snapped in unison. "Hypocrite!" they didn't quite thunder. Christians thunder; liberals sneer, but it amounts to the same thing, counting sins.

They got quite a lot wrong. In South Carolina politics, Sanford has never been known as a "Bible thumper," and he recently irritated those who are by not signing a bill that would have welded I Believe to the state license plate. He wasn't elected governor in 2002 pushing family values; he ran as a vague libertarian and was elected because a lot of Democrats, blacks especially, abandoned the odious incumbent, Jim Hodges, who got into office powered by black votes and then engineered an immense transfer of wealth from the poor and black to the better-off and white via his education lottery. Sanford didn't "lead the charge" against Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair; he said Clinton had lied (he had) and, like a dutiful low-level Representative in a party of discipline, voted for impeachment (along with five Democrats). He is no more of a right-wing, hate-filled moralist than most anyone in the party of Barack and Bill, the party of "don't ask, don't tell"; the Defense of Marriage Act; and Personal Responsibility in the form of lectures to teenagers, lectures to poor single mothers, lectures to black men on Father's Day and laws that make life harder for them all. He could not "embarrass" the State of South Carolina, itself an embarrassment since slave times, enabled quite effectively in that condition over the years by politicians regardless of party.

None of this says much for Sanford, but it says a lot worse for his liberal scolds. They profess to be cosmopolitan, above the mumbo jumbo of religion, vanguardists for self-determination -- to know better, in other words, all the while arguing the case for compulsory monogamy and just punishment for sexual sin more vigorously than the religionists they laugh at. "The travel partners of infidelity are shame, deception, embarrassment, hurt and heartache -- ugly, negative, soul-diminishing feelings," intoned Mark Lett, executive editor of The State, in explaining why it was so vital for South Carolina's main newspaper to publish private communications between the governor and his lover. "There is no joy among responsible journalists in telling stories about infidelity and its seat mate, personal failure."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: doma, sanford

JoAnn Wypijewski, a former senior editor of The Nation, is based in New York City.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A question for the editors:
Posted by: Spot on Jul 3, 2009 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's nice of you to print some kind words for the man, but what's with the title? The left wasn't mentioned once in this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Actually... Posted by: batmagoo
» RE: Actually... Posted by: Spot
» RE:As a Democrat I love him Posted by: Edward George
Great article, and greater writing, even.
Posted by: batmagoo on Jul 3, 2009 1:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice piece of writing. And some excellent issues raised.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh Boo Hoo
Posted by: TruthBeTold on Jul 3, 2009 1:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A foolish article written by a foolish woman.

Next we will be readng the Ted Haggard was just a misunderstood husband who thought his male lover was really a woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh Boo Hoo Posted by: sliver
He was an uber-moralizer
Posted by: Izzy Stoner on Jul 3, 2009 3:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He even belonged to "The Family" -- a secretive fundamentalist group of theocrats (see http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525 ). Sanford set himself up for his fall. As they say in the Philippines, "The higher the monkey climbs up the tree, the better everyone can see his ass."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You Got It.
Posted by: CornetMustich on Jul 3, 2009 3:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A hypocrite? Re: Obama, DOMA, DADT, "war" funding, national health, bail-outs for Wall St looters, Israel-Palestine.etc. Yes indeed.
Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace, Washington, Connecticut

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Article Challenges My World View
Posted by: Lloydmillerus on Jul 3, 2009 4:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought the ENTIRE LEFT had lost its humanity decades ago in a cess pool of hate, vituperation, and partisanship.

This article proves I was wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This man is a polygamist
Posted by: lalala on Jul 3, 2009 4:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who won off the backs of his perfect family... and look how he sold them out. Meanwhile gays are considered immoral?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

*Sigh*
Posted by: Femmy68 on Jul 3, 2009 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, you are doing exactly what you've been accused of doing. You're playing down the actions of a republican while condemning democrats who committed the same acts. That's the point Maddow was making, which apparently, you missed entirely. And was it not lying when the press was initially told, and it was reported that he was vacationing in the mountains?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: *Sigh* Posted by: clvngodess
"Sanford has never been known as a "Bible thumper,"...."
Posted by: xvictor on Jul 3, 2009 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really? Hypocrite Sanford (and his out-of-the-loop wife) usually interjects "liberal" doses of biblical quotes into his speeches. If that's not bible-thumping I don't know what that is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

an elected rep or leader who disappears and cannot be located is the problem
Posted by: scribbler on Jul 3, 2009 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
an elected rep or leader who disappears and cannot be located is the problem... not his sex life or confessions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Until politicians stop interfering with other people's lives...
Posted by: ikonoklast on Jul 3, 2009 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...by codifying sexual mores in law, they must be held accountable every time they violate their own prescribed code of conduct.

The purpose of pointing out their hypocrisy is not to paint them as bad people, but to demonstrate that their self-proclaimed morality is groundless and ludicrous. They have no moral authority and certainly not the right to tell anyone else how to conduct their love life. Once everyone agrees that love and sex are matters that only concern the people directly involved, we can stop exposing their peccadilloes and perversities for public scrutiny.

Believe me when I say I want to stay out of their bedrooms as much as I want them to stay out of mine!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rachel Backed it Up
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Jul 3, 2009 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wordweb defines hypocrisy as "Insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have."

I don't read Maureen Dowd, but Rachel Maddow read the quote in which Sanford said Clinton should resign for lying about an affair. She noted that Sanford voted for impeachment. She pointed out that Sanford ran on family values.

In light of Governor Sanford's current situation, it sounds like hypocrisy to me. So is the author redefining the word?

Also, the definition of hypocrisy does not grant an exemption to people who are "dutiful low-level Representative(s) in a party of discipline." In my opinion, that would be the least worthy of all possible excuses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Rachel Backed it Up Posted by: munchkinpup
Liberals and Democrats are no angels either
Posted by: LeonBNJ on Jul 3, 2009 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Liberals and Democrats far too often ignore the affects and potential corruption against voters of sexual affairs in their fellow side and party members. They ignored the signs of Jim McGreevey here in New Jersey as to his cheating on his spouse with male partners, despirate to take the Governorship. Many of them have affairs, see prostitutes, yet support DOMA, DADT and against same gender full civil marriage rights in their counterdictary politics despite to win elections or stay in office.
Still, Gov. Sanford should resign as he used state monies illegally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He's a Self-Centered Dullard
Posted by: pcinsc on Jul 3, 2009 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IMO the real problem for the citizens of SC is Mark Sanford's attitude - cry a little, invoke some religiosity, and then assume that everything's good - he can just pick up where he left off the day before he took off, like nothing's happened. Oh, and of course, he's not going to resign because it wouldn't help him sort things out. He's so dense he doesn't get that this isn't about him - it's about us, the citizens of the state, and the state of SC. I for one could care less about his personal stuff, as long as he doesn't do it on our time or on our dime! The fact that he didn't bother to let anyone know he was leaving not just the state but the country shows his contempt for pretty much everyone - he could have been kidnapped or who knows what and caused an international incident! I'm not a shrink, but I think it's safe to say that the guy is just self-centered to the point of being pathological.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ummm ok???
Posted by: bnvasquez on Jul 3, 2009 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article starts off good then it just drags. The "left" is mentioned in the beginning and middle...then makes some other point. Maybe this author's other works are different, but I simplay fail to see the drastic point of this article. So what if he wasn't all Republican in the sense that we like to think he was? The fact remains on many liberals or leftists minds is the fact that the Republican party is about morals, family (particularly the traditional nuclear family), anti-gay, and traditionalism overall. Do liberals do the same thing? Of course, but liberals don't go around preaching everything conservatives (real conservatives) do.

It's not about one particular man, it's about the party itself. It's about all the nonsense and hatemongering that sticks out that really makes it scary for person who isn't conservative.

This is probably not one of the best written articles I've seen on alternet...maybe the author had a point, but I think she failed to provide a sufficient argument to get her point across.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ummm ok??? Posted by: Spot
» RE: Ummm ok??? Posted by: bnvasquez
» RE: Ummm ok??? Posted by: Spot
That is the Dumbest article
Posted by: jrmart on Jul 3, 2009 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the hell are you trying to say? You spout hundreds of words and say nothing.

Dumb! a waste of time reading.

go away!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And another thing!
Posted by: jrmart on Jul 3, 2009 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would ANY Governor that left his State, left his job, and ran off telling no one where he was going, keep his job?

Forget his adultery. That is not the States problem. But his dereliction of duty is unforgivable.

He needs no defence for destroyin his marriage, I couldn't care less. But he needs to be fired!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You've missed it
Posted by: Jeanne on Jul 3, 2009 10:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think the "glee" on the part of progressives is about being able to rant about the sanctity of marriage and all that. The glee is that, once again, a holier-than-thou self-proclaimed moralist has had to admit to being exactly not that. The glee is catching these buffoons being what they proclaim so loudly to be against. It's the hypocrisy, stupid. I think intelligent people understand that anyone could succumb to temptation, guiltily or not. It's the throwing rocks part that makes you subject to scorn and ridicule.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You missed the point of the outrage on the left entirely....
Posted by: glogrrl on Jul 3, 2009 11:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as I'm concerned, he can have a 3-way with his mistress and his spiritual counselor. Just don't go on TV and invoke the Old Testament, which is FULL of infidelities, plural marriages,mayhem, and anachronistic dictates (does he eat shellfish?), and weep that he has sinned.......then KEEP doing it over and over and proclaiming his mistress as his soulmate but he's gonna try to fall back in love with his wife....WTF?!!! Puleeze! Just shut up, resign, and go away, Marky-Boy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thank you, thank you, thank you
Posted by: maddy on Jul 3, 2009 11:15 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an Alternet first for me: no dressing drown of message board trolls, no quibbling with the article in question, and no new things to add.

THANK YOU.

I've been thinking a less eloquent version of this ever since this "scandal" broke.

Beautifully written and totally on point.

Again, THANK YOU.

What Matt Taibbi (spl?) did for the public debate over the bailout you have done for this (non)news story. Did I say thank you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Polyamory shouldn't trump honesty, integrity and fortitude
Posted by: cplot on Jul 3, 2009 11:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though it is really difficult to discern what point the author is making here – perhaps that we should embrace polyamory – whatever it is it doesn't seem worthy of overlooking or even celebrating Sandford’s lack of honesty, integrity, and fortitude.

While I am often the first to decry the right-wing obsequious rantings of the like of Rachel Maddow and Maureen Dowd, the most notable hypocritical moment for Mark Sanford has been the video of him justifying impeachment and condemning Bill Clinton for lying to his wife more than lying under oath. So while you might argue Sanford is actually a polyamorist whose wife knew about and supported his sharing of intimate relations with another woman and therefore not lying to her, Sanford himself would have to admit he too knew nothing of the intimate relations between Bill and HIllary Clinton. In other words he could claim no more certainty of Bill lying to his wife than we can claim to know that Sanford is lying to his wife. Yet it didn’t stop him from supporting impeachment of Clinton on this very flimsy notion.

Also, while the author may be willing to overlook the lack of integrity and lack of fortitude involved in a congressional member simply falling in line with whatever the extremists in his party called on him to do, others (even Maddow) disagree with the author’s contention. We actually believe it is not too much to expect integrity, honest, and fortitude from our elected officials. We also believe it is not hypocritical to call out politicians who fall short on these virtues. This country needs politicians with integrity, honesty, and fortitude much more than we need to vaguely defend the virtues of polyamorous relations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Rachel Maddow Posted by: Spot
» RE: achel Maddow/Spot Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: achel Maddow/Spot Posted by: cplot
» RE: achel Maddow/Spot Posted by: Spot
» Spot-Off! Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Spot-Off! Posted by: cplot
» RE: Spot-Off! Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Spot-Off! Posted by: cplot
» RE: Spot-Off! Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Spot-Off! Posted by: cplot
» RE: Spot-Off! Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Spot-Off! Posted by: cplot
» RE: Spot-Off! Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Spot-Off! Posted by: cplot
» RE: Spot-Off! Posted by: cplot
» RE: Spot-Off! Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Spot-Off! Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Spot-Off! Posted by: goldmarx
Bogus Article
Posted by: munchkinpup on Jul 3, 2009 1:51 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This exact same article has been published under a different title on the Nation's website:

"Triangles"
Carnal Knowledge
By JoAnn Wypijewski
This article also appears in the July 20, 2009 edition of The Nation.

It is the author's (and AlterNet's) glaring hypocrisy that needs to be discussed. Nothing like jerking around the readers of AlterNet, and it's working like a charm.

"Lefty" baiting anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You cannot imagine what I'm thinking?
Posted by: maddy on Jul 3, 2009 1:58 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, let me clarify then:

1. The left reinforces the right's "moral policing" frame by delighting in the right's (supposed, see below) hypocrisy in each successive revelation of the individual "failing" of right-wing public figures. I realize that lefties don't intend that, but that is the end result. I'm thinking here along the lines of Lakoff's argument in Don't Think of an Elephant .--by continually attacking the right's frame, you actually reassert its dominance.

2. I think it's high time the adults in this country had an honest damn conversation about the ABSURD over-valuation of the institution of marriage. The notion of one human being becoming your "everything" (best and only lover, best friend, co-parent, co-financier, forever and ever until you die) is naive at best, at worst, the source of much disappointment, loneliness, and resentment. If you consider, just for a minute, the variations in social arrangements across cultures and across time (e.g. for the majority of human history "romantic love" had nuthin' to do with the tasks of raising children or defining community ties) you'd begin to acknowledge that it's the contemporary fairy-tale bs around the institution of marriage that's the problem, not the supposed sins of married individuals. Even our grandparents and greatgreatparents did not expect their spouses to be their "all," and had more extended (and often homosocial) networks to find meaning and belonging in life.

3. On hypocrisy. The left projects its own value system--of equity & fairness--onto the right in this emphasis on hypocrisy. Folks on the right value POWER, concentration of wealth, winning no matter the costs, and, above-all, loyalty to one's in-group. They don't care about charges of hypocrisy because they believe in defending their own at all costs against outside attacks. They think that people who advocate the liberal value of "everyone should be judged by the same standard" are fools who ignore the "natural" hierarchy of humans--some humans count, some don't, and those in power deserve that power and should use that power. Right-wing elites know that the "family values, sanctity of marriage, return to tradition" claptrap is a way to both WIN VOTES and undermine social justice movements in the process (because it distracts wedge voters from economic issues and encourages infighting among them).

Along similiar lines, one of the attractions of power is sex. Period. To think that any elites of any political party genuinely believe that sex should only be between married couples--rather than that being a simple pitch to win voters--is to, again, miss the point entirely. But, hey, call me a cynic, but I think politicians expect extramarital sex as a perk of office. The only change is that contemporary journalists report it because it sells--consider, for example, that reporters protected the marital infidelities of FDR and JFK because they didn't think it was the nation's business AND because it was also business as usual.

4. Lastly, how can ANYONE champion the publishing of the private correspondence between a married man and his mistress? There was no lawbreaking here--this wasn't the Spitzer case where the dude was using taxpayer money to both solicit and prosecute prostitutes at the same time. This is a private and utterly commonplance matter between the people involved. He didn't break the law, so it's not our business.

Our collapsing economy, incinerating planet, and permanent warfare state: THOSE should be our business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, oops! LOL Posted by: maddy
» ? Posted by: maddy
» RE: ? Posted by: goldmarx
'Hypocrite' sums it up
Posted by: Democritus on Jul 3, 2009 3:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JoAnn strives mightily to make Sanford look like just another guy with a yearning in his pants. But it isn't true. His own statements about supporting family values show him to be a weaselly hypocrite, whom the left is justified in skewering.

If he had a sterling record to back up his determination to hold onto the governorship, then it would make sense for him to stay. As it is, however, he is not only a failure as a husband and father, but a failure as a governor. His is the face of the new Republican party, along with Larry Craig, John Ensign, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin. The party of Lincoln has descended into irrelevance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

toxic nuclear family of over-consumption and mass isolation
Posted by: maxsmart on Jul 3, 2009 3:29 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, you said it, open marriage and polyfidelity for one but basicallly escaping the religiously imposed dogmatism of sexually repressive morality.
The morality that give usa a world at war, us at war with our world and our body at war with our mind. The thirst to take the gloves of civilization off and really get down and dirty with those we hate so much. That justifies the rape and pillage of the global village.
Where we glamorize the romance of sedcution in movies only to turn off completely the instant we are married to our soulmate. When there may be numerous soul mates all worthy of care and recognition in our life and world. Where insecurity and jeolousy would be thwarted by honesty and a variety of protective agreements and unique conditions we create. Where we live life as we feel it rather than as we are forced by conventions to constrain and repress it always looking to catch some one else getting away with something we wont allow ourselves to do then crucifying them for it.
A wholistic and organic rather than a dualistic world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On hypocrisy
Posted by: maddy on Jul 3, 2009 3:52 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hypocrisy is too narrow a frame to discuss this story, because the underlying assumptions of someone being a hypocrit are that 1. they believe what they say they believe, and 2. that they can and do act in accordance with those beliefs.

Let me take a more obvious example: consider all the cases of late involving rabidly homophobic right-wingers that, shocker, turn out to be closet-cases. For every one of 'em, the left turns out with its "OH, THE HYPOCRISY!" frame--it dominates every conversation.

Personally, I think that kind of hypocrisy is the SYMPTOM, not the DISEASE. No one should be surprised that the most overtly ridid moral policemen in a given society are running from their own demons. For example, it should not be a surprise of any kind that the Catholic Church became a hunting ground for pedophiles--it makes complete sense that said men would run to a religion that promises salvation through a rigidly repressive belief system while, conveniently, also offering the authority and access needed to secure the trust of kids. To rage on and on about the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy, misses the point that the hypocrisy itself is a, if not the, indicator of a problem. People who live at peace with their own sexual desires and romantic relationships are far less inclined to obsess about and police the sexuality and relationships of others. If someone is waxing self-righteous, there's a damn good chance they've got something to hide.

The focus on the hypocrisy is also fundamentally dishonest in that it doesn't acknowledge the reality of infidelity among political elites who pander to the family values crowd. They don't do so because they're trying to be morally consistent, they do so because it's how you win votes!!! In the case of the Clinton scandal, do you really think those right-wingers who voted for his impeachment did so because they were so aghast about the cigar-a-pades or because it afforded them the perfect political opportunity to destroy an adversary and his party? The "surprise" implied by the "Oh, the hypocrisy!" is willful in its naivete and, worse, continues to operate within the moral frames established by the right in the first place.

Speaking of, am I the only person who expects men in power to expect extramarital sex as a job perk?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: On hypocrisy Posted by: cplot
» RE: On hypocrisy Posted by: goldmarx
yep
Posted by: kenhymes on Jul 3, 2009 4:48 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find that there is far less distance between self-identified liberals and self-identified conservatives than either profess. Mostly both utterly adddicted to corporate-mediated culture; mostly both full of some form of righteous moralism (whether religious or political) but keeping big fat ugly secrets from their families; mostly quick to throw insults, slow to seek common ground for justice issues; mostly full of factoids, empty of historical understandings of key institutions. I don't say it makes no difference who is in the ascendant, clearly it does. But it is disheartening to hear the carping at Sanford from people who most likely are using internet porn regularly, sleeping around, or otherwise responding to the twisted sexual ethos they were raised with. Can we try to be in this shithole of a culture together? Can we slow down just a second before we take the easy potshot? We are all damaged (or sinners, take your pick). We all need each others' forgiveness (or God's or Allah's or whoever's, take your pick). We all live under the same absurd, wasteful, culture-destroying corporate regime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Premise is Wrong
Posted by: froggy16 on Jul 3, 2009 6:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"He wasn't elected governor in 2002 pushing family values;"

His campaign commercial for the 2002 election ran under the banner of "Christian Values." I think one could logically extrapolate that Christian Values include those of the "Family." Since it said "Christian Values" on the actual screen of his commerical, why would you say that he didn't run pushing values? Since you start the article under a false premise, it is difficult to take anything you say seriously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sanford
Posted by: cd348 on Jul 3, 2009 7:58 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What!? Am I supposed to feel sorry for this chump? I don't. Just like I don't feel sorry for any jerk who cheats on his wife and then goes on nation-wide tv and sheds tears of remorse. Total crap.

Ever heard of divorce? Oh no. Too messy for a politician. What nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excuse me - I'M a hypocrite?
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jul 3, 2009 10:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lemme see...

Been married for 17 years. Never touched another woman the entire time. Don't throw rocks at others who behave differently - unless they start sticking their own noses into my sex life or the sex lives of others.

I only expect that Sanford do what he demanded Clinton do - resign. I personally never condemned Clinton - but I did condemn Spitzer - for his hypocrisy. (I'd "forgive" Spitzer in a heartbeat, though. At least he didn't use state funds to buy his hooker. And unless he wants to push for legalization, he should damned well recuse himself from anything dealing with prostitution in the future.)

The author doesn't seem to grasp that someone who parades his family and marital relationship, condemns "immoral" behavior in others (watch some of his campaign commercials) and makes "trust" his claim to fame, is not entitled to screw around "because Democrats do it too."

There is too much moralizing, agitating, legislating and bloviating from the right wing on matters sexual for them to expect - in all fairness - anything but unbridled glee from the left at what he has wrought for himself. He is a disgrace - because he himself says he is and always has.

So the poor little baby isn't to be blamed for or held to the standard he set for Clinton when he voted to impeach and publicly moralized about it. WAAAAA! The party made him do it!!

Give me a fuckin break.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sex
Posted by: sex on Jul 6, 2009 2:27 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» F*CK YOU Posted by: xmvince
Why the Left? looks like a hypocrite? You're kidding, aren't you?
Posted by: jjjazz on Jul 6, 2009 3:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was very disappointed in this post. Not very persuasive, to say the least. I would suggest the author review the meaning of hypocrite. The Dems are not famous for holier than thou conservatism, and bible thumping sinners such a Haggard, Swaggart - shall I go on? Republicans are. Sanford is on record as so many of his party are, of numerous self-righteous comments about others, even suggesting that another Republican resign when he was caught. Now that Sanford has found "love," it's different; he thinks all he has to do is say 'I'm sorry." It is so classic, I am surprised no one stopped this writer before posting and clarified for her the phrase "hoisted on your own pitard" and how it applies here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Johng
Posted by: johng on Jul 7, 2009 2:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This appologist for Mr. Sanford has completely glossed over the most important issue attached to this matter - he did this on the tax payers' dime. Under our criminal statutes, this is called embezlement, which is a serious felony that could result in a lengthy prison sentence. But, nary a word regarding this. A married man having an affair, and even lying about it, is nothing in comparason.

And, notwithstanding the soft-soaping of Mr. Sanford's self-described "love story" by the article's author, the fact is he was right there with the rest of the pack clamoring for the impeachment of Mr. Clinton

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MODERN DEMS = THUGS INC.
Posted by: reelman on Jul 7, 2009 2:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MODERN DEMOCRATS = THUGS INC.

by David Kahane July 2009 in National Review:

“In other words, stop thinking of the Democratic Party as merely a political party, because it’s much more than that. We’re not just the party of slavery, segregation, secularism, and sedition. Not just the party of Aaron Burr, Boss Tweed, Richard J. Croker, Bull Connor, Chris Dodd, Richard Daley, Bill Ayers, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Emperor Barack Hussein Obama II.

Not just the party of Kendall “Agent 202” Myers, the State Department official recruited as a Cuban spy along with his wife during the Carter administration.
Rather, think of the Democratic Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party.”

CRAWFISH NOTE: I have long maintained that the democrats are street thugs without ethics or restraints of any kind…for example: truth is foreign to them, gaining power via vote-buying or numerous recounts as guidelines change tactics, more voters than registrants tactic, found ballots in cars tactic, fighting any voter ID tactic, suppressing or shouting over any challenges tactics, serial fact-less assertions tactic, the false ethics charge list against enemies tactic, the never apologize tactic, the calling opponents dimwits tactic, the personal smears and profane insults while refusing to answer most any basic question as to why their secular socialism pacifism is the best path for America tactics.

Always the attack, never the logical defense, the scrutiny of modern liberal principles like victim worship, using discrimination to end discrimination, debt and taxes without restraint, the trashing of marriage-family-people-respect for life, people of faith and basic morality.
They are relentless using these tactics while blame shifting and topic shifting which seems genetic to their very being.

Modern liberalism is a mental disorder. There can be no compromise with a mental disorder. There can only be exposure and defeat by bold logical informed Americans.

http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sanford should be tarred and feathered
Posted by: Reverend Bookburn on Jul 9, 2009 7:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was sad to read this. People who have criticized or lampooned Sanford did a good thing. The point of calling out Christian-Taliban hypocrites is not only because it's true, but these people are at the forefront of attacking reproductive rights, adult entertainment and adult sexual freedoms. Sanford is not an innocent moderate. He is a featured speaker of the teabaggers and hero to the religious right. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Left/liberals?
Posted by: davmills on Jul 15, 2009 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the author mentions "liberals", who does she mean?The Democratic Party/Democrats in general? A liberal in the true sense is someone who believes private life is exactly that, and separate from public life. Even some Republicans (not enough, perhaps) feel so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement