Right Wing Hypocrisy, or Why Sex Guilt Fucks Things Up For Everyone
The story is pretty much boilerplate at this point. “Right-wing Republican politician/ prominent Christian Right leader, famous for advocating a rigid sexual morality, caught in sex scandal.” It’s hardly even newsworthy.
The latest, of course, is David Vitter, Republican senator from Louisiana, who built a career supporting abstinence-only sex education, opposing same-sex marriage, and generally trying to legislate sexual morality . . . and was recently identified as (and has admitted to being) a client of the D.C. Madam.
There’s also right-wing evangelical preacher Ted Haggard, preaching about the evils of homosexuality and supporting a ban on same-sex marriage . . . having regular sex with a gay male prostitute. There’s Republican Congressman Mark Foley, pushing for laws to protect minors from sex predators on the Internet . . . sending sexually explicit and seductive emails and instant messages to underage pages. There’s Bob Allen, Republican representative in the Florida House and co-chair of McCain’s presidential campaign, sponsoring a bill to tighten Florida’s public sex laws . . . getting arrested for offering a male cop $20 to blow him in a public bathroom.
And that’s just in the last year.
I’m not even talking about Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Bob Livingston, the widespread pedophilia in the Catholic priesthood, and similar scandals from years past. It seems like cartoonist Tom Tomorrow is asking the right question: “Should we assume that every sanctimonious, moralizing Republican is a closeted sexual libertine – or just most of them?”
So here’s what I’m finding fascinating.
It’s not just that these right-wing figures are generally preaching a rigid sexual morality that they don’t practice. The pattern I find so compelling is that, for so many of them, the specific taboo sex acts they engage in are the exact ones they publicly campaign against.
Ted Haggard – preached against the evils of homosexuality; had sex with a male prostitute. Mark Foley – campaigned against Internet predators endangering minors; sent sexual and seductive emails and instant messages to teenagers. Bob Allen – tried to tighten bans on public sex; solicited a guy in a public bathroom. And now Vitter – opposed same-sex marriage to protect marriage’s sanctity; cheated on his wife with prostitutes. (In what were reportedly some fairly unusual variations.)
It’s almost eerie, how precisely the hypocrisy matches up.
Admittedly, a big part of this pattern comes from the media focus. Hypocrisy in powerful public figures is big news, and I’m sure there’s some cherry-picking in the coverage. After all, “Married Congressman caught with hookers – and he campaigned on the sanctity of marriage!” makes great headlines. “Married Congressman caught with hookers – and he voted to renew the Farm Bill!” isn’t going to make headlines anywhere but the Surrealist Times.
But even given that, there’s a precision to the match-ups between the public condemnation and the private behavior that seems like more than coincidence and media focus.
Maybe it’s all just smokescreens. You rant enough about the evils of homosexuality and pedophilia, and you figure nobody will suspect the truth about those teenage boys. But if all this sexual hypocrisy is a smokescreen, it’s a singularly stupid one. It may protect you from suspicion for a while – but when the hammer comes down, it’s going to come down that much harder. So even from a purely pragmatic angle, you’d think that if you were offering $20 to blow strangers in public bathrooms, you’d pick an issue to campaign on other than the evils of public sex.
Or maybe it’s the natural human tendency each of us has, to believe that we personally can be trusted to know which laws and rules should be obeyed, but that other people can’t be and everybody else should just obey the law. But while that explains the right wingers’ overall willingness to break sex laws and flout sexual taboos, it doesn’t explain the eerie specificity with which their law/ taboo breaking matches their public condemnation.
What’s that about, anyway?
I’m no expert. I’m not a psychologist or therapist. But based on my years of experience in the sex world, what this smells like to me is sexual guilt – and overcompensation for it.
I don’t think Ted Haggard was happy about having sex with men. I doubt seriously that David Vitter or Jimmy Swaggart felt great about seeing prostitutes. Ditto Mark Foley about being hot for teenage boys, or Bob Allen about picking up guys in public bathrooms. Maybe some of these right-wing hypocrites are laughing up their sleeves about how they’ve pulled one over on everyone. But for the most part, I think they feel tremendous guilt about wanting, and having, the exact kinds of sex that they believe are destroying society and making baby Jesus cry.
So they overcompensate. They hate themselves for wanting what they want and doing what they do . . . so they preach against it, and propose legislation against it, and do everything in their power to relocate their guilt out in the world instead of inside their own treacherous minds and bodies. They may even feel that, in fighting the scourge of homosexuality or whatever, they’re somehow making up for their own misdeeds. I even have some compassion for them, although I’d have a whole lot more if they weren’t screwing things up for the rest of us.
And this is just one more reason we need to work for a new sexual morality – to shift it away from a guilty freakout over which tab goes in what slot, and towards a morality based on honesty and consent.
Because if people in power weren’t so wracked with guilt about their own sexuality, I think they’d be a lot less obsessively controlling about everyone else’s. If Ted Haggard hadn’t felt so guilty about fucking men, maybe he’d have become a minister in the gay-positive MCC . . . instead of battling gay rights at every turn. If Mark Foley hadn’t felt so guilty about emailing and IMing teenage pages, maybe he’d have felt comfortable going for guys who were young but legal . . . instead of trying to turn the Internet into a Norman Rockwell painting. And if David Vitter hadn’t felt so guilty about wanting unusual fetishistic sex, maybe he and his wife could have come to an agreement about it . . . instead of trying to protect the sacred institution of marriage from the depraved ravages of gay people in love.
Just a thought.
This entry was posted on Thursday, 2 August 2007 at 12:00 am and is filed under Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
on Friday, 3 August 2007 at 1:58 am Robert Armistead wrote:
Making fools of themselves, as these jerkoffs have done, at least causes little harm to the country at large. Consider however what may be the most damaging hypocritical “act” of all time - J. Edgar Hoover. His homosexual bent is no longer in doubt but he spoke out against its “evils” often.
The damage? He testified to Congress that “The mafia doesn’t exist.”
The FBI had, at that time, detailed charts of the “families” with names and dirty histories plainly shown but Hoover ignored this and thus dealt the war against organized crime a body blow it took years and the death of Hoover to overcome.
Why did he do it? The most likely explanation and also the one offered by one of the wise guys is that one of the major “Dons” had very revealing photos that Hoover would have been most unhappy to see released to the media. The Don, according to the wise guy, made Hoover aware that the pics existed and Hoover’s silence about the “mob” was required to keep them safely locked away.
We can laugh at the escapades of public figures who soil their images (and their diapers) and poke comedic fun at them but considering the case of Hoover, we have to wonder if there are any more with the power he wielded causing like damage to our society.
on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 at 2:02 am The Ridger wrote:
Welcome to the Carnival of the Liberals, a fortnightly collection of the best of liberal blogging. This Carnival differs from others in that it is “the best” - only ten posts are selected
on Saturday, 18 August 2007 at 4:07 am Republican Sex Guilt, Gay Marriage And Iraq wrote:
[…] Right Wing Hypocrisy, or Why Sex Guilt Fucks Things Up For Everyone | Blowfish Blog […]
on Friday, 24 August 2007 at 9:28 pm Barrett Laurie wrote:
Amen! As an openly gay man, I was reading this thinking how unfortunate for these guys! I agree, I think that their guilt made them take the paths they took! It seems very disheartening to think how powerful these men had become based on lies. Great post! I really like your blog! I will be back to see what’s new soon!
on Saturday, 25 August 2007 at 9:55 pm Helen wrote:
I was actually thinking the same guilt complex half-way through your article - it’s a good point, too. I guess now the only problem is trying to convince delegates who are supposed to be pinnacles of morality not to be guilty of their sexual fantasies…
on Friday, 31 August 2007 at 10:59 pm LarryO wrote:
I think the guilt underlies self-loathing, and it is the self-loathing that is the egg that hatches the public displays and posturings - a kind of public denial at the beginning, which if successful soon morphs.
Because that field is truly fertile, if properly plowed. So Haggard had a hugely profitable business, as did Falwell, and Foley, Vitter and this latest nincompoop all held public office . . . the troublesome thing is the number of people each of these jackasses favorably impressed with his particular brand of venom.
That is, I believe, the attraction of public office for these outspokenly self-righteous, reactionary Republican pervs who indulge in exactly what they inveigh against: I don’t think they are trying to compensate for anything - I think they are simply hypocritical charlatans, latter day Elmer Gantrys, preying on the weak-minded, narrow-minded, fearful, superstitious and ignorant people to whom their blatherings appeal.
on Sunday, 2 September 2007 at 12:21 am Hugh wrote:
I think you people have got it the wrong way around I think that these people start with good, if horribly misguided, intentions and then as they fight the “enemy” they find out more about them and end up doing the things they swore not to. This is similar to the case of the crusades who, having been told of the rape pillage and gluttony of the enemy did many of these things themselves. In the case of guilt complexes such as the ones your talking about they’ll usually not partake in the deed itself.
on Sunday, 2 September 2007 at 2:57 pm david wrote:
senator larry craig
CRAIG: I don’t, ah, I am not gay, I don’t do these kinds of things and…
OFFICER: It doesn’t matter. I don’t care about sexual preference or anything like that. Here’s your stuff back sir. Um, I don’t care about sexual preference.
CRAIG: I know you don’t. You’re out to enforce the law.
OFFICER: Right.
CRAIG: But you shouldn’t be out to entrap people either.
OFFICER: This isn’t entrapment.
CRAIG: All right.
OFFICER: Um, you you’re skipping some parts here, but what what about your hand?
CRAIG: What about it? I reached down, my foot like this. There was a piece of paper on the floor. I picked it up.
OFFICER: Okay.
CRAIG: What about my hand?
OFFICER: Well, you’re not being truthful with me, I’m kinda disappointed in you Senator. I’m real disappointed in your right now. Okay, I’m not, just so you know, just like everybody, I, I, I, treat with dignity. I try to pull them away from the situation.
on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 at 1:38 pm when politicians try to police our sex lives | Good Vibrations Blog wrote:
[…] OK, so I’m sure that you’ve seen lots of posts about all of the politicians who get caught doing exactly the thing that they rail against and/or pass laws against. But here’s a quick review of a recent few (excerpted from the Blowfish Blog): […]
on Friday, 7 September 2007 at 2:59 pm Banzai wrote:
There’s a definite logical progression to this type of denial, public posturing, and private excess. Let me outline how I think it goes:
1. Being (insert sexual orientation/practice here; for convenience, I’ll use “gay”) is wrong.
2. I find myself attracted to men.
3. Most other people are probably feeling the same way.
4. These people are morally objectionable.
5. Decent people need to be protected from them with harsher laws and penalties.
6. I’ll be the one to champion those penalties.
7. Now that I’m doing so much good for people, and since I’m under so much stress, I can afford to cut loose a little and have my own needs met.
8. This doesn’t make me gay–just look at all the good work I’m doing. I’m a good person.
9. In fact, I can afford to take a few risks. Since I’m so well-respected, people will cover for me.
10. I’ve been caught out somehow.
11. Since I’m so well-respected, people will believe me when I tell them I’m not gay, but they’re weak-minded, so it’s best not to tell them any of the other things I’ve been doing. They might get the wrong idea.
12. I’ve been forced to resign, but it’s okay, because I’ve found Jesus and it turns out his followers will pay me to talk about sinning and then repenting.
13. Now that I’m so well liked and doing so much good…
Repeat ad nauseum.
on Sunday, 21 October 2007 at 7:52 am Tom wrote:
FYI - - in psychology, the phenomenon identified above (rallying against the very thing you are obsessed with and feel guilty about) is called “reaction formation.”
on Thursday, 20 March 2008 at 9:27 pm A Tale of Two Scandals: The Obligatory Eliot Spitzer and “American Idol” Stripper Column | Blowfish Blog wrote:
[…] Here’s the thing I keep thinking about Governor Eliot Spitzer. Yes, the hypocrisy. Yes, the irony of a law- and- order, anti- prostitution governor being caught with a hooker. Yes, the fascinating pattern of public figures in politics and religion indulging in the exact same tabooed sex acts they preach against most vehemently. Yes, the increasingly repugnant spectacle of the wronged wife having to stand by her man at his podium of shame. Lots of people have said this already, better than I. […]
on Friday, 19 December 2008 at 2:26 pm Matt from LTE wrote:
I love these stories more than I love when there seems like there’s extra marshmallows in my Lucky Charms. If they weren’t being hypocrites, I’d say ’stay out of their personal lives’ but they just ask for it. They really do.
on Sunday, 16 August 2009 at 10:26 pm anon wrote:
lol… You are really looking at it too hard. They lie to gain the support of the right wing religious nuts. These people are sheep and have lots of money they are willing to give to anyone who says they love the bible. Bullshit to these people you don’t get a hard on for little boys and preach the good word in church or in a debate and presto money/support/power. People who seek power are greedy and mentally ill to begin with. Lying, cheating, and taboos feed their sick power high. What I find painful is they get their cake and eat it to because the people that follow them will defend them because they are so delusional they will believe the devil tempted them and they they mean it when they say their sorry and have ask for forgiveness.
on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 at 3:40 pm “People are fascinated by sex lives”: The Blowfish Blog Interview with “Outrage”’s Mike Rogers | Blowfish Blog wrote:
[…] I’ve pondered this question before. But it keeps coming up — and up, and up, and up, to an almost comical degree. So I thought I’d ask one of the world’s leading experts on closeted gay politicians: Mike Rogers. […]
on Friday, 2 April 2010 at 10:06 am when politicians try to police our sex lives | Good Vibrations Magazine wrote:
[…] OK, so I’m sure that you’ve seen lots of posts about all of the politicians who get caught doing exactly the thing that they rail against and/or pass laws against. But here’s a quick review of a recent few (excerpted from the Blowfish Blog): […]