When "political" rhymes with "hypocritical" - more on Congressional pederasty
I try hard not to be partisanly political on this blog. I know I don't always succeed but I do try hard.
Yes, I freely express my opinion against politicians and pundits who take regressive stances on positions and who advocate for policies that would hurt me, my partner, my children, and all 250+ million fellow citizens, but conservatives and right-wingers afflict both major political parties (and don't even get me started on the occasionally faddish minor parties.)
This time I'm kind of stuck. If I offend anyone I apologize. But!
For some years the national Republican party has aggressively marketed itself to so-called values voters -- moderate-to-conservative, generally religious people who are, at least, uncomfortable about all but a narrow set of sexual preferences. To woo these voters Party leaders have passed some unbelievably regressive laws. Unbelievable, it turns out, because they didn't believe in them.
Consider this just yanked press release from Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert's website
Hastert Drives Effort To 'Keep Kids Safe In Cyberspace' Congressman leads community meeting addressing Internet safety
ST. CHARLES -- Congressman J. Dennis Hastert brought national experts together with community leaders and parents on Tuesday for a 14th District Community Meeting to share information and insights on protecting children from Online predators.
...
"Recent news stories remind us that there are predators using the Internet to target children," Hastert said. "And just as we warn our children about 'stranger danger' when they are at the park or answering the door or telephone, we need to be aware of potential dangers in Cyberspace."...
Via the actually-not-pretend-conservative The New Republic which kept a copy.
In August, when this press release was issued, Speaker Hastert knew, and *had known* for the better part of a year, that not just any member of his party but the man behind the law was not only been making sexual advances on minors for whom Hastert was responsible, but that he using "cyberspace" to do it.
You simply *can't* simultaneously support a law protecting children while shelding someone who violated it. Unless you really don't believe in it yourself.
The word "pandering" is probably overused in politics. But the word has two distinct meanings.
intr.v. pan·dered, pan·der·ing, pan·ders
1. To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.
2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: "He refused to pander to nostalgia and escapism"For this prudish libertine, anyway, it's unacceptable to have to use both meanings in the same sentence.
Look. Here's the deal with hypocracy: when you vote for a law you don't believe in, when you don't intend to obey it, when you don't intend to enforce it against those who are loyal to you, when you value it not for its merits but for its utility as a reward for supporters and a cudgel to use against opponents, you'll vote for laws that are disconnected from reality but which still have consequences.
When you don't believe in the laws you vote for, when you don't respect the principles you claim underlie them, you lead everyone to believe they have more protection than they do.
The law Foley wrote -- the law the FBI is now investigating him for breaking, the law Speaker Hastert, and House leaders ohn Boehner, and Alexander, and Reynolds, and evidently quite a few others voted for -- violations of which may now be their -- and their party's -- undoing had a very bizarre loophole: under District of Columbia law, and the law of most other states, Foley could be imprisoned for using the internet to solicit sex that would be perfectly legal *to have* since (as far as we know at the moment) the young people he solicited were past the age of consent!
So. Look back at that press release. Dig around for similar ones on the websites of other members of Foley and Hastert's party (but better be quick, they seem to be disappearing.) They made a big deal, a *huge* deal about how they were "protecting children." Even though they knew they weren't. Even though they knew, as Rep. Foley *absolutely* knew, that they could head back to work and bugger their pages with relative impunity. The law didn't affect them (unless, like Foley, they used the internet.) Their party leaders were already protecting them. The rubes they were pandering to would support them (and evidently still do.) And all the while they could claim the moral high ground.
Pisses me off!
This party always claims the moral high ground and is quick to find the immorality in others. As this story was breaking, they were bragging about a poll in which they more married, have more nuclear families and have more children per household than Democracts.
In my estimation, neither one of those things alone would make an indiviual less a sinner.
[Nor in my experience. Also, Matt Yglesias has mentioned the fact that the married/nuclear/with-children cluster rules out young people who tend to be more sanguine about sex and are also likely to remain sanguine about it even after they marry and have children. Thanks, Five. --fl]