Another point about California State Assembly member Michael Duvall’s recent nominally self-flagellating (but actually self-serving) resignation announcement wherein he said
“I am deeply saddened that my inappropriate comments have become a major distraction…”
The comments, of course, weren’t comments so much as explicit bragging into what turned out to be an open microphone to a colleague about sex he was having with two lobbyists for a company his committee oversees.
Duvall had, until his resignation, a 100% favorability rating for “family values” from a right-wing group associated with the ultra-conservative Focus on the Family. And like many similar right-wing politicians Duvall had frequently capitalized on his good standing on morality issues to advance himself into a position where he could… easily have things to brag about to his colleagues, I guess.
That’s not at all uncommon. I’m pretty sure there are still whole websites dedicated to tracking the low crimes and misdemeanors of conservative politicians and public figures.
But! As I mentioned in the previous post check out how Duvall also uses the right’s scripts of disapproval of sex to deflect attention away from his much more serious, and also much more conventional transgressions: misuse of office, exploitation of power for personal gain, and public corruption.
If you find yourself talking about the salaciousness of his remarks (“eye-patch” underthings, dripping-wet legs) or the hypocrisy of his “sanctity of marriage” stands against Proposition 8, you’re buying into his framing of the transgression. Worse, you’re tacitly agreeing with the “family values” crew that that twittery rather than substance should be the emphasis on the next guy. And the next. And the next. Because they’ll be more, apologizing to their constituents and to their wives for hiring their “gals” from Central America (Randall Tobias) instead of pushing abstinence-only HIV prevention in Africa, wearing their diapers with escorts (David Vitters), cruising their airport bathrooms (Larry Craig), hiring the prostitutes they said they were arresting (Eliot Spitzer) instead of misuse of funds, and kiting off on the Appalachian Argentinian Trail (Mark Sanford) instead of dereliction of duty, and so on. And each time counting on the fact that while we’re squealing and squeezing our knees together over stuff their side says is immoral but that’s often not even illegal we’re disregarding their real scandals, which often are illegal… but they don’t seem to understand is immoral as well.




Submitted by 3196 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-09-09 22:17.
These are both excellent posts. You're the first person I've seen who's really nailed this.
Submitted by 3196 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-09-09 23:06.
I second Chingona's comment. The thought hadn't even occurred to me, but now that you bring it up, it seems so obvious!
[Thanks Eve, and Chingona too. I hope everyone picks up on this! It drives me crazy that people get away with it over, and over, and over again. --fl]
Submitted by 3196 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-09-10 03:14.
Excellent parsing of a messy issue...and I agree with chingona and Eve that your analysis makes it obvious.
I immediately thought of the impeachment attempt for Bill Clinton in this context. Getting a BJ from a young intern was shamed and attacked to a ridiculous degree even though there was no transactional element or misuse of position or power that affected Clinton's official duties. It *may* have been a personal act of transgression to his wife (but then we don't know what agreements they had in their marriage) but he wasn't trading political favors, money, or influence there. Still, many people reacted as if the sex act was the Worst Thing Ever, despite our (ahem) proud history of philandering Presidents. Seems that we need to get over the sex thing and get to critical thinking...
Submitted by 3196 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-09-10 03:45.
Thank you!