Rep. Lee and Gawker: The Mental Gymnastics of Moral Relativists (Update: The Abolitionist’s Primer)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Update: Powerful picture added at the end.
So we saw yesterday the flame out of Representative Lee, and while I knew Gawker got it all going, I was reluctant to mention or link to them just because generally I consider them sleazy and don’t want to encourage them. And truthfully, I didn’t even read their original report, because the story was over by the time I even heard of it.
But this morning I found myself reading it, and these paragraphs leapt out at me.
Yesterday, we reached out to Rep. Lee, whose support for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and vote to reject federal abortion funding suggests a certain comfort with publicly scrutinizing others’ sex lives.
A spokesman for the Congressman confirmed that the email address belonged to Lee, and that he had deleted his Facebook account because our initial inquiry had him fretting about “privacy.” (A screenshot of his account before it vanished is at right.)
Isn’t it funny how people like this have to rationalize their interest in this salacious story? They strike the pose of not caring at all about a person’s sex life, what two consenting adults do is no of their business, etc. etc., so they have to explain why it is normally that they don’t care, but here they do.
But the fact is they do care about it, in and of itself. How do we know this? Because their explanations don’t actually stand up to scrutiny. You see they are conflating two different definitions of privacy, here. The first definition of privacy is the right to keep things secret.
The second, the kind of privacy involved in cases like Lawrence v. Texas and Roe v. Wade, is really about self-autonomy.
Now, which kind of privacy is involved when a politician wants to screw around and not have the whole world know? The first kind.
And what kind of privacy is involved when you want not only to have the right to abort but get the state to pay for it? I mean the state will know, in that circumstance, who you are and the fact you were pregnant and that you got an abortion, so you are not increasing your secrecy. But you are controlling your life to a greater degree. So that is the second kind of privacy, i.e. self-autonomy.
And likewise, if you want to be asked about your sexuality while working in the military, to be able to tell your superior officer, to tell your whole unit, well you are decidedly not trying to keep anything secret. You are asking to exercise self-autonomy. Whatever you think of the legal and moral principles, that is what it is.
Indeed, notice the language they choose: “suggests a certain comfort with publicly scrutinizing others’ sex lives.” Telling a woman she had to find her own money to pay for an abortion doesn’t even relate to that. Neither is telling a person not to tell if they are gay. And this fig leaf of an explanation is offered because they can’t admit that they do actually care if a Congressman sleeps around.
It has been an article of faith on the left for over ten years now that affairs don’t matter. The view seemed to become liberal dogma when talking about Clinton and his dalliances. Never mind that the man did more than cheat. He perjured himself, he sent his attack dogs against any woman who alleged she had been hit on by him in a classic “nuts and sluts” manner. Never mind that much of what he did would count as sexual harassment. And never mind that even darker allegations than just cheating surfaced, such as allegations that he had actually raped a woman.
But, the left always says, look at the great men in our history who slept around. President Kennedy and Martin Luther King come to mind. And in the founding era, Benjamin Franklin comes up. And yes, I know of Jefferson, but his issue with Sally Hemings is a special category of wrong, which I will talk about in a moment.
As for the “mere” cheaters, of course it should not disqualify you automatically from public life. JFK was a great man despite his cheating. But it’s not nothing. The wedding vow is one of loyalty to a certain partner, to have and to hold, forsaking all others. The oath is generally given in a house of worship and is owed as much to one’s God as one’s spouse. Why should we believe that a person who violates that oath, would nonetheless honor an oath of office? And most cheating involves lying, too. Why do you think that a politician would only lie to you?
So the correct answer, I think, is that it is a relevant consideration when evaluating public officials, but it is not the end-all-be-all of qualification for public service. For instance, take the example of Thomas Jefferson. First, Jefferson was a slave-holder. That is, itself, an incredibly evil act. American slavery is correctly considered an atrocity on par with the Nazi holocaust. But Jefferson made it worse by having an affair with one of his slaves. I want to be clear on this point. I don’t care what color she was. What I care about is the fact that they lived in a society where he purported to own her. A woman in that position cannot be said to be giving her consent of her own free will, even if she is saying the word “yes” (and we don’t actually know she even said “yes”). He holds too much power over her—in fact his power is theoretically absolute. It’s not a Romeo and Juliet story as so many people are so quick to declare; it is borderline rape.
But obviously we were better off as a nation that Jefferson was not driven from power because of it. Still, at the same time it would dishonor the memory of the slaves Jefferson harmed, particularly Ms. Hemings, to pretend it is not even relevant when evaluating him.
In the end moral relativists are trained to believe—or to pretend to believe—that the worst sin a person could commit is hypocrisy. It is not. Take for instance, the example of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson has received a ton of abuse throughout history for his hypocrisy, declaring on one hand that all men were created equal—and truly including black people in that pronouncement—while holding people in bondage. But which is worse? Thomas Jefferson? Or an unrepentant slaveholder, like John C. Calhoun, who not only kept slaves but told us that slavery is a positive good? Yes, Jefferson committed a grave sin by owning slaves. But what is termed his hypocrisy I see as a redeeming feature. At least he had the decency to tell the world not to do what he had done. And with those words in the Declaration of Independence, he put slavery on the road to extinction. It can be safely said that emancipation might never have happened if it was not for what Jefferson said and if it did, it almost certainly would have taken longer than it did with Jefferson’s condemnation of the institution at the foundation of this Republic.
I am a religious enough man to believe in divine reward and retribution. I believe that by keeping slaves and especially what he did to Hemings, Jefferson endangered his immortal soul. And if anything saved that soul, it was those words he wrote in 1776.
As for Gawker, it seems fair for me to suppose that they believe in things like gay marriage. But what good is winning the right to gay marriage if by then it is an institution robbed of all meaning? Rather than pretend it doesn’t matter if a person cheats, and pretending that the only reason why they care about a man like Rep. Lee is because of some half-baked theory of hypocrisy that doesn’t stand to scrutiny, why not admit that cheating is a wrong in and of itself, and is inherently relevant and newsworthy when a politician does it? It’s a lot simpler than pretending opposing public funding for abortion is somehow approving of “publicly scrutinizing others’ sex lives[.]” Report on these things, regardless of whether it is a Democrat or a Republican, and let the people decide what they think of it.
But then if they wanted to respect the institution of marriage, they might not have done this.
H/t: Mother, May I Sleep with Jim Treacher?
Update: Looking through some of my history geek materials, I found this page from the Abolitionist’s Primer. It aptly illustrates the unique evil that slavery visited upon black women.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
The issue may be more of a lack of honor which justifies moral relativism in pursuit of a cause they support. “Sticking it to the man” becomes the end all in the world of justifying the end through ANY means at hand.
Hypocrisy is a speed bump on the road to their utopia.
vet66 (eb4cdb) — 2/10/2011 @ 1:55 pmIsn’t Gawker when Anna Marie Cox landed? Hypocrisy is the second most common BS meme from the Left.
JD (b98cae) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:02 pmThis is a very good post, Aaron.
I agree that Jefferson beats Calhoun, and I guess this should be pretty obvious. Hypocrisy is not the worst sin out there, but it’s a clever way to reset the rules for who is and isn’t OK if you oppose ‘family values politics’.
Gawker is the lowest rung of the internet, and their rationalizing is done as a matter of pure formality. They know they don’t mean it. They certainly know their readers don’t care.
That Lee was acting in such a bizarre way is newsworthy, and we should notice that Gawker’s BS suggests it wouldn’t be newsworthy in the case of a Calhoun of family values (so to speak).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:05 pmDustin
so, i think what you are saying is that Ted Kennedy was John C. Calhoun of cheating. lol
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:07 pmI don’t see why anyone should be respecting the craigslist hoochie’s privacy – Mr. Lee should release everything he knows about her – that was really truly evil what she did I think. Yes Mr. Lee was probably gonna self-destruct on his own – but we can’t know that for sure.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:08 pmYeah, outting a lying cheat…
God, she’s such a bitch…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:11 pmhappyfeet, she was propositioned by a man who lied about what he did, and lied about being married. And it turns out that he’s a congressman.
It’s very sleazy that she chose Gawker of all places to inform the public about him. Obviously, she did this because Gawker pays for sleazy stories, and Fox News doesn’t. But I do think exposing Lee was the right thing to do.
I realize going to Criagslist to pick up a one night stand is not ladylike, but every woman or man is entitled to honesty about whether their love interests are married.
And let’s be honest: Lee shouldn’t blame this woman for the fact his little plan exploded. He really acted like he wanted to be caught.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:14 pmI don’t think running to gawker is something a woman with any class or self-respect would have done.
It’s not like there’s degrees of craigslist whores. You either are one or you’re not.
It’s craigslist for crying out loud that’s where you go for a couch or a candelabra or a pet rabbit it’s not where respectable people go for a little sumpin sumpin.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:19 pmProbably not. How much do they pay, though? If you’re going to rat out a sleazy guy, and you could make $25,000 doing it via the sleaze at Gawker, would you at least pause to consider it? Bear in mind, there is a much sleazier path she could have taken, as Lee’s family is wealthy to the tune of hundreds of millions.
I don’t know if Craigslist is only populated by whores. Thankfully, I’m blind to the world of internet dating drama.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:25 pmAnyway, let’s not worry about whether she’s trashy or not. I don’t think her being slutty would justify Lee dumping all his info about her.
What’s kinda amusing is that he probably has no info on her anyway. He just has the craigslist generated email, for all we know.
I thought a lot of these ‘I’m a girl looking for a guy’ ads on craigslist were completely phoney, run both by internet trolls like Kman and imdw, but also by people hoping to blackmail married men.
there could be more to this story than we’re aware of.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:28 pmDustin #7 – did you not realise that the Founding Fathers had a reason for naming the Federal Legislature after a sexual act ? They didn’t just call it “Congress” on a whim, you know …
(innocent grin)
Alasdair (369386) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:45 pmbut who’s the hypocrite is the point of the exercise, no?
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:45 pmLeftists get all tingly when they can scream hypocrite at someone, regardless of whether or not it is appropriate.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:51 pmMr Worthing got it partially wrong:
No, it has been an article of faith on the left for over ten years now that affairs involving Democrats don’t matter. Affairs involving Republicans, on the other hand, are enormous scandals and deserving of the greatest of public humiliation and scorn, and disqualification from holding
The realistic Dana (132cf8) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:57 pmpubicpublic office.As for Representative Lee, just how stupid do you have to be to go trolling for chicks on craigslist? He’s not ugly, and he couldn’t have won a congressional seat if he was shy or unable to talk to people and wasn’t at least a little bit charming. If he wanted to fool around, he could have gone to a singles bar or any of a number of places where he could try his luck in person, without leaving a computer trail.
The Dana who is amazed by some people's stupidity (132cf8) — 2/10/2011 @ 3:05 pmThe National Enquirer, 2/10/2011, has a similar article on Speaker John Boehner. Excerpt follows.
“New Speaker of the House JOHN BOEHNER is embroiled in a bombshell sex scandal – involving at least two different women, The ENQUIRER has learned!
Capitol Hill insiders and political bloggers have been buzzing about an upcoming New York Times probe – detailing an alleged affair that the 61-year-old married father of two had with pretty Washington lobbyist LISBETH LYONS.
And an ENQUIRER investigation has uncovered a bedroom encounter that Boehner – second in line of succession to the presidency – allegedly had with LEIGH LaMORA, a 46-year-old former press secretary to ex-Colorado Congressman JOEL HEFLEY.
The Ohio native, a congressman for 20 years, and his wife Deborah, 62, have been married for 37 years…”
ropelight (10ff3e) — 2/10/2011 @ 3:06 pmMr. Feets – The sleazy money grubbing hoochie could have made a lot more money if she had waited to run to Gawker until after she had played hide the sausage with Rep. Lee. Just sayin’.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/10/2011 @ 3:16 pmGawker probably didn’t use gay marriage as its phony justification because that would have meant open season on Obama.
MayBee (081489) — 2/10/2011 @ 3:17 pmWell, it isn’t the person that went looking for a hookup on CL, and found that one of the guys she was talking to was not, as he claimed, a divorced 39 year old lobbyist, but was in fact a married 46 year old member of Congress.
Frankly, I consider his exposure a service.
Scott Jacobs (218307) — 2/10/2011 @ 3:20 pmit’s just very sad this silly guy his whole life is destroyed and for what I ask you?
It’s awful.
A cautionary tale hopefully what will help other peoples make better choices.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 2/10/2011 @ 3:24 pmYou sure have odd ways of reading plain words, or making pancake-like souffles of them.
Gawker didn’t write or imply that this was their “rationalization” for doing the story. They did the piece because, as we like to say in journalism, and this is a term of art: “It’s a story.” (I eschew the exclamation mark that might go along with that because no serious journalist EVER uses one. If the words and image don’t exclaim on their own, then fuggedaboudit.)
It is a story whether about Republican or Dem. It is a story whether he’s a well-known lech and liar, or a deacon in his church.
Gawker obviously threw in the stuff about his support of certain legislation as evidence of hypocrisy. That is a big thing these days with the young smartset, doncha know — hypocrisy. It has moved up much higher on listings in the modern-day Social/Political Code of Hammurabi.
It’s not Gawker’s rationalization for doing the story. But it sure as hell adds to the multiple reasons it is one.
Larry Reilly (0e1b2d) — 2/10/2011 @ 3:34 pm“It is a story whether about Republican or Dem.”
Larry – Tell us about the rush to cover John Edwards again, mkay?
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/10/2011 @ 3:38 pmLarry- do you think being against public funding of abortion and sending shirtless pictures of yourself is good evidence of hypocrisy?
MayBee (081489) — 2/10/2011 @ 3:42 pm“Hypocrisy, in any form, is what makes something funny.” – Jay Leno
TimesDisliker (e9ee5c) — 2/10/2011 @ 3:44 pmIf it is, I would like to state that anybody who doesn’t support publicly funded boob jobs is interested in publicly scrutinizing other people’s sex lives.
MayBee (081489) — 2/10/2011 @ 3:45 pmMawy Reilly is a JournoList? Good Allah.
I am 200% in favor of MayBee’s position, and would like her to form an exploratory committee to run for office. Brilliant.
JD (109425) — 2/10/2011 @ 3:53 pmSay what you will, the dude’s 46 and looks pretty good without a shirt. I gotta get back on the program.
Dana, he probably started looking for the kind you pay, and then wondered if the free kind might be a better bet, him being a Congresscritter and all. You’re right about the singles bars; he’d be aces at the Ritz lobby bar or the Bennigan’s by the airport.
carlitos (180217) — 2/10/2011 @ 4:07 pmDoes this mean Nina Burleigh will not be offering to give Rep. Lee a hummer?
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/10/2011 @ 4:16 pmcolonel had nipples
ColonelHaiku (0e3ddd) — 2/10/2011 @ 4:33 pmlike that he’d be posting on
all known dating sites!
Congresscritter is apparently a scummybunny, not to mention laugh-inducing ridiculous.
The epic failure with the Libs/Dems ‘hypocrisy’ meme is that they’ve highlighted the wrong party. The example to look to is not Lee, the Congressman: it is that Lee resigned PDQ exactly because the Repub/Conservative constituency, as a whole, won’t support Lee’s type of behavior, unlike most Libs, who will rally around, participate in marches and file lawsuits in support of their own people’s thievery, unethical behavior, or moral turpitude.
When is the last time any Dem/Lib, caught red-handed in the cookie jar, bowed out? Was left without mass support from their constituents?
Therein lies the difference between libs and others. When we discover creeps like this, we shun, not celebrate.
ShyAsrai (921609) — 2/10/2011 @ 4:34 pmlove grow where larry
reilly go and nobody
grow quite like him
http://media.nowpublic.net/images//e9/8/e98a226dd5c30c1f384b0570b1e2651c.jpg
ColonelHaiku (0e3ddd) — 2/10/2011 @ 4:43 pmThe first time I saw that pic linked, I thought to myself, that is something I could see crissyhooten doing.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/10/2011 @ 4:51 pmAaron, with all due respect, there is a glaring omission from your discussion of privacy.
There is also the 3rd kind of privacy, in which you don’t want people to search you, or your house, or paw through your stuff without some *reasonable* suspicion that you were breaking the law. That happens to be the ONLY kind of privacy that the Constitution concerns itself with, and therefore it’s really the only kind of privacy that ought to be subject to rules and laws.
If you want privacy as in keeping your sex life secret, then you’re well advised to be faithful to your spouse, not proposition loose women with big mouths, and find relationships on other places than internet auction sites. If you want privacy #2, as in autonomy (“self-autonomy” is a redundancy), then you’d be well advised to have lived 100 years ago. Them days are gone. This is the Age of the Regulator.
Gesundheit (aab7c6) — 2/10/2011 @ 4:52 pmFor Maybee:
re: abortions, now matter how funded.
You can take that penumbra the Supreme Court spoke of those many years ago and put it where the sun don’t shine. (For the slow on the uptake: penunbra has to do with light and shadow.)
The high court was interested in privacy. As in privacy in matters of sexual behavior and bodily function. And when you send via cell phone topless pictures of your honorable Congressional self to solicit elicit sex, then, well, your own sexual privacy becomes rather problematic.
BTW, I’m against the death penalty. But I help fund it publicly. If you believe life is so sacrosanct, I must ask if you’re working or arguing to end my having to pay into that machinery of death.
As for the chicky-poo who goes by the nom-d’ignorance delayedrocks and her reference to John Edwards, well, the National Enquirer got so untouchably far ahead of everyone else that it was simply their story, and their story only.
If you don’t know journalistic competition from the inside, then you just don’t know. Famously, notoriously, almost invetibably, when one journalist enterprise has something the others can’t catch up with …….it gets ignored by those others, and often shot down later when and if they can. Say what you will about that, it just is. Every line of work has its insider quirks.
BTW, daleyrocks, aren’t you the one who the other day said something here about “minorities and chirrens.” Why didn’t you just go ahead and use the “N” word. It’s safe here.
Larry Reilly (0e1b2d) — 2/10/2011 @ 4:52 pmBy a show of hands, how many are surprised that May Reilly is a JournoLister?
I am pretty sure, Mawy, that your have not even remotely characterized MayBee’s comment correctly, and SHOCKA, it seems her point went flying right past our pointy little head.
You are exactly why JournoLists are only slightly more respected than lawyers and child molesters.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/10/2011 @ 4:57 pmCongressman wants to wet his winkie: women, minorities hardest hit.
carlitos (180217) — 2/10/2011 @ 4:58 pmlarry reilly have
ColonelHaiku (0e3ddd) — 2/10/2011 @ 4:59 pmprinciples that resemble
dog rockets on ice
Abortion isn’t about sexual privacy, though. Abortion sometimes is a downstream result of sex, but it isn’t a sexual act. And deciding who pays for it is certainly not a sexual act. It certainly isn’t about scrutinizing other people’s sex lives.
So what about other kinds of surgery that might come about because of sex or a desire to have sex? I used boob jobs as an example.
MayBee (081489) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:01 pmMaybe I should use porn movies. Porn movies lead people to want to have sex. If you don’t support public funding of porn movies, you are interested in scrutinizing other people’s sex lives. Right?
Calling BS here. If John Edwards had been a Republican, every media outlet would have been running stories about his affair. The story wouldn’t have been the province of just one paper.
Some chump (e84e27) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:04 pmSo the NYT refusing to run the story (which they had about the same time NE did, if not before) was just some kind of f**king fluke?
Are you really this stupid?
Scott Jacobs (218307) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:07 pmThe New York Times ran a story on the unfounded McCain rumor, though. See the consistency?
carlitos (180217) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:13 pmThe answer to your question is yes and no, Scott. Yes, he’s that stupid to think we’d fall for his trolling vacuity.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:13 pm“Why didn’t you just go ahead and use the “N” word. It’s safe here.”
Larry – Are you admitting you hate black people?
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:13 pm“BTW, I’m against the death penalty.”
Larry – Killing convicted heinous criminals bad. Killing innocent unborn babies good.
Nice standard chump.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:16 pmSo, if Keiff Olbergasm breaks a story, MSNBC and the rest of the MFM will not cover it, because someone else beat them to it? Really?
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:22 pmHey, when it comes to sites like Gawker, it’s all about the Benjamins. And it’s ONLY about the Benjamins.
If it gets them more readership and brings in more clicks and revenue, they’ll run it, and that’s that.
1389AD (a946ae) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:30 pmHey, don’t compare Larry to me! 🙂
Some chump (e84e27) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:34 pmLarry must have been upset because he made more than one comment. He usually doesn’t have the huevos to stay for more than one.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:36 pmI still cannot believe that Larry is a JournoList.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:40 pmLarry – Did Mel Reynolds resign when he was indicted in 1994?
No, he was reelected and waited to resign until more than a month after he was convicted.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:41 pmÉl que no tiene muchos huevos pudiera ser huevon…
carlitos (180217) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:41 pmSort of off topic, but I want to register my protest of this wording:
Yesterday, we reached out to Rep. Lee
That seems to have become the de rigeur phrase on all sides of the blog world and the MSM, and I despise it. It’s so touchy feely sounding, but all it means is “tried to contact”.
I actually despise this more than I do the formulaic conjurations of morality that Aaron is pointing to. The hypocritical voyeurism is par for the course–has been for years–goes back to the Founders (witness the abuse that Jefferson took for his involvement with Hemings* and the abuse thrown at Andrew Jackson regarding the circumstances of his marriage to Rachel).
But there is nothing that can excuse the abuse of the English language in the way that phrase does!
[end of rant mode]
*It should be noted that while to us the scandal of Jefferson’s affair centers on the fact that she was his slave–and possibly still in her teens when the affair started–for Jefferson’s contemporaries the scandal centered on the fact that she was a black woman. White man, black woman–couldn’t have that, could we?
kishnevi (225b9d) — 2/10/2011 @ 6:01 pmKishnevi – sports announcers that say “score the ball” is one of my pet peeves.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/10/2011 @ 6:23 pmIs should be are.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/10/2011 @ 6:23 pmIf you want a real example of hypocrisy, check out Dianne Feinstein’s pistol permit.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/10/2011 @ 6:35 pmMost likely it wasn’t Jefferson, but one of his relatives, a meme that won’t die.
narciso (e888ae) — 2/10/2011 @ 6:38 pmI don’t believe that hypocrisy is the worst sin a person can commit.
However, I do object to people in power using that power to make illegal, or otherwise subject to public calumny, activities in which they themselves engage. It’s a special case of hypocrisy: it’s hypocrisy combined with the use of power to ensure that other people can’t do what the hypocrite *can*.
That said, I see no reason whatsoever why Rep. Lee should have had to resign over this. It’s an amusing story, because it involves shirtless pictures of a (surprisingly good looking) politician; but it’s of no significance.
aphrael (b10968) — 2/10/2011 @ 6:38 pmaphrael, aside from the lack of morals, how about resignation because Americans really don’t want nor need someone this painfully stupid representing them?
Dana (8ba2fb) — 2/10/2011 @ 6:44 pmDana, for one thing I don’t think he has a responsibility to take into account the views of anyone other than his constituents. 🙂
And even there – I don’t know that I think that a duly elected Congressman has a responsibility to his constituents to guess as to whether or not they disapprove of him enough that he should step aside; the next election will come soon enough, and the voters can express themselves then.
The calculus changes for Senators, of course. And my case would be stronger if there were recall of federal elected officials.
aphrael (b10968) — 2/10/2011 @ 7:03 pmaphrael, maybe he wanted to step down, whether this happened or not. Something is wrong with this guy.
His explanation for resigning is that he’s not able to effectively represent anymore. I think that’s possible, given he just exposed to the world that he’s an untrustworthy idiot. I think representatives are exposed to some sensitive constituent matters, and also expected to be reasonably responsible.
I’m glad he resigned. He could have let the election decide, and Lee had every right to wait, but I’m glad he didn’t.
And I’m not aware of him outlawing adultery, btw. While there’s always something pathetic about a loud family values type who has none, I wonder if it’s just confirmation bias, rather than the stereotype that those professing values are compensating.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 7:14 pmDustin: my comment about banning practices in which you yourself engage should not be construed to apply to Lee; it doesn’t. That said, I also had a subclause complaining about “otherwise subject[ing] to public calumny”, which *may* apply to Lee; I don’t know. I’d never heard of the dude before yesterday.
aphrael (b10968) — 2/10/2011 @ 7:16 pmWell, personally, I’ve always seen this kind of problem as a severe defect of selfishness and impulse control. It’s particularly ugly when someone is both fighting a certain behavior and partaking in it (like Eliot Spitzer).
but I think there’s just a disease common to those who survive or thrive in politics that I love to see weeded out as much as possible.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 7:23 pmRight. Spitzer’s case was far, far worse than this, because of the combination of fighting + partaking.
Would your analysis of Lee’s character change if it turned out his wife was aware and authorized his behavior?
aphrael (b10968) — 2/10/2011 @ 7:24 pmThis is wring, but there is far worse. This is wrong between him and his family.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/10/2011 @ 7:26 pmDrastically. It’s still lying to the craigslist girl (if she’s even a woman… I don’t believe many of those ads are legit), but the selfishness and betrayal change.
JD is right that this is minor compared to a lot of wrongs we see every day. And that it’s between him and his family. He quit and we should forget him as quickly as possible. It’s hard not to feel sorry for him.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 7:30 pmYeah, I see it as being between him and his family, and ultimately none of my business. I’m mostly interested in what he represents, not in him per se.
aphrael (b10968) — 2/10/2011 @ 7:32 pm🙂
*facepalm*
Countries around the word were abolishing slavery before and after Jefferson wrote that sentence in the Declaration of Independence. Let’s not pretend that it was a novel idea, nor that Jefferson’s words were that catalyst for what eventualy became abolition some 90 years later.
Anyway, Jefferson would be recognized today as a white supremicist, even ignoring the fact that he owned slaves. In his writings, it is clear that he did not consider blacks to be equal. While he thought that they were entitled to the same rights, he suspected that they lacked the ability to use those rights. See, for example, Notes on the State of Virginia at 270:
Kman (26c32e) — 2/10/2011 @ 8:12 pmOopps. He wasn’tt refering to blacks (or Indians) when he wrote it.
Kman (26c32e) — 2/10/2011 @ 8:15 pmRACISTS !!!!!
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/10/2011 @ 8:15 pmI’m watching David Letterman make fun of this guy.
David Letterman.
Seriously.
carlitos (180217) — 2/10/2011 @ 8:43 pmThe ads for women seeking men on Craigslist just tripled in volume. Rich, attractive, successful guys show up there all the time.
That gym in Rayburn must be freaking awesome.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 8:50 pmKman
> Let’s not pretend that it was a novel idea, nor that Jefferson’s words were that catalyst for what eventualy became abolition some 90 years later.
Read “American Scripture” and then tell that to me. Lincoln himself agrees with me on this point.
> In his writings, it is clear that he did not consider blacks to be equal. While he thought that they were entitled to the same rights,
Proving you have no idea what the phrase “all men are created equal” actually means.
> he wasn’t refering to [black people] (or Indians) when he wrote it.
Well, thank you for the Roger Taney view of history, but in fact, he was. He was cribbing off of George Mason’s draft of the Virginia Constitution. Mason was forced to change his language because it too clearly condemned slavery. Jefferson was not, although another section where he weirdly blamed King George for slavery was cut, his perambulatory language was not.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/10/2011 @ 9:00 pmIs should be are.
And that should be who.
🙂
Sorry about that, but I’m the sort of guy who thinks Eats Shoots and Leaves is about the only must-read book published in the last few years
Comment by Kman — 2/10/2011 @ 8:12 pm
And even this you can’t get right. Notice that “To our reproach” that begins your quotation? You did notice it, since you’re the one who supplied the quotation, didn’t you?
“To our reproach–” He’s admitting the racism of his society, and admitting that it’s not really a good thing.
kishnevi (36244e) — 2/10/2011 @ 9:08 pmAaron Worthing at 9:00 pm – I believe that George III did actively prevent several of the colonies attempts to outlaw slavery before the revolution. I believe (working from memory here) that George vetoed such attempts by at least Penn and Rhode Island, and maybe Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Somewhat ironic as the British and specifically the British Navy would become the most potent foe of the international slave trade in the 19th century.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 2/10/2011 @ 9:41 pmBTW, I’m against the death penalty. But I help fund it publicly. If you believe life is so sacrosanct, I must ask if you’re working or arguing to end my having to pay into that machinery of death.
— Mawy Reilly trotting out the tired old ‘I guess it depends on when you kill ’em, huh?’ meme is . . . well, tired & old.
And stupid.
Icy Texan (ee4418) — 2/11/2011 @ 1:03 amIt’s Gawker, the folks who posted Palin’s emails on lines, who slandered Christine before the election,
narciso (e888ae) — 2/11/2011 @ 4:00 amyou know very honorable folk
Kishnevi:
“To our reproac” does not modify the part where he expresses his “suspicion” of blacks’ inferiority.
And there are, by the way, other examples in other of Jefferson’s writings.
Kman (26c32e) — 2/11/2011 @ 5:18 amIt is as though calling people RACIST is ingrained in some people’s DNA.
JD (0d2ffc) — 2/11/2011 @ 5:29 amnarc
agreed, they are scummy people. part of why i didn’t want to link to, or even acknowledge, them.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/11/2011 @ 5:56 amKman
What you don’t understand, Kman, is this. There are two very different approaches to any anti-discrimination policy. To understand it, you have to understand how discrimination is justified. In order to justify any kind of discrimination you have to make two determinations, one factual and one philosophical.
First, you have to believe that there is a significant difference between the two groups in question.
Second, you have to believe that such a difference justifies the contemplated discrimination.
The modern approach to equality of opportunity is generally* to deny the first part—that there is a significant difference. (I say “significant” because the color of one’s skin is technically a difference, but most sane people would agree it is not a significant one.) So, when in regards to the ultimate racial discrimination, American slavery, Kenneth Stampp began his classic examination of the Peculiar Institution by saying that he saw black people as white people with black skins. (That’s not a quote, but that is a very close paraphrase of his creepy metaphor.) To Stampp, it was necessary to show that black people were equal to white people to denounce slavery.
By comparison, when Owen Lovejoy, a prominent abolitionist at the time, denounced slavery he answered the argument that the black race was “infirm” (his word) by saying that just because a race was “infirm” did not mean it was right to enslave them. To him, the physical and mental equality of the races was irrelevant.
So when Jefferson says that he believes the black race was inferior to whites, that doesn’t answer the question. But if you go back to the declaration, when he says that all men are created equal, obviously he is not saying that all men are physically or mentally equal. Leaving racial issues out of it, some people are smarter than others, some people are stronger, etc. And Jefferson knew that. What he was talking about was equality in rights. As Jefferson himself later said, repeating what had been a cliché since the days of Cromwell in England, “no one is born with a saddle on his back or spurs on his feet.”
So jefferson’s advocacy of the end of slavery was a classic example of a man basing his argument solely on the second approach.
And its worth noting that the vast majority of the founders of the civil war amendments followed the second approach. Which is why you heard them very often say very racist things while passing laws outlawing racial discrimination. One giant exception to that is Thaddeus Stevens, who did believe in racial equality.
What the founders of the civil war amendments believed, however, was in true equality of opportunity between the races. And they bluntly felt that if you allowed for racial discrimination it was a confession that you were uncertain of your own group’s equality. For instance, once stevens mocked his fellow republicans for fearing the “rivalry” of women the way the democrats feared the “rivalry of the negro.” So there was no contradiction in their minds in saying that black people were inferior but also offering non-discrimination. They felt naturally black people who lose most fair contests.
And there was one other thing. They were humble enough to recognize that they could be wrong. That is, they felt that even though they believed black people were inferior, they could be wrong. So in a real way, offering equality of opportunity was an act of humility, deciding that rather than rigging the game, they would allow people to compete freely and the best would surely win. And if the best happened to be black, they would be glad to see that happen—even if they would also be very surprised.
But that all being said, you would not be the first nor the last to make that fundamental misunderstanding about how the founders saw these issues.
———————–
* Of course there is one giant exception to that generality I just spoke of. i will leave it to you to guess what i am talking about.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/11/2011 @ 6:25 amThat was about a thousand more words than he deserved, AW. All kmart really wanted to do was call someone a racist.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/11/2011 @ 6:38 amAW:
I don’t dispute most of that. I just don’t think Jefferson gets a pat on the back for saying, “Blacks are physically and mentally inferior to me, but they are entitled to the same rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” One could say the same about one’s dog. As “redeeming features” go, it’s a pretty lame one.
And I certainly don’t think Jefferson’s sentiment acted in any way to bring about the end of slavery in America, seeing as how he was not the first, nor the most prominent, to recognize that people owning people (even “inferior” people) is abhorrent. Several of the colonies, and the masses of other countries had long since reached that conclusion long before Jefferson wrote the Declaration.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/11/2011 @ 6:46 amKman
> And I certainly don’t think Jefferson’s sentiment acted in any way to bring about the end of slavery in America, seeing as how he was not the first, nor the most prominent, to recognize that people owning people (even “inferior” people) is abhorrent.
excuse me a second here, are you telling me that the Declaration of Independence was not PROMINENT?!
The only documents that rivaled it in prominence is the constitution itself and the bible. For instance, Thaddeus Stevens, the father of the 14th amendment was taught to read using the declaration and the bible. Seriously, read “American scripture.” you will know exactly how prominent it was.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Scripture-Making-Declaration-Independence/dp/0679779086
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/11/2011 @ 6:54 amUhp. Nice try there — trying to put words in my mouth.
No, I’m telling you that the individual words and phrases of the Declaration of Independence did not weigh heavily among the populace in the 1860s.
Even now, when the Declaration of Independence is prominent, Jefferson’s words about equal rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness don’t register with about half the population (when it comes to gay marriage). It was much the same in 1860.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/11/2011 @ 7:08 amJD, it’s not about this person’s wanting to call other people racist.
He wants to call them homophobes, of course.
Simon Jester (b1e000) — 2/11/2011 @ 7:15 amKman
> No, I’m telling you that the individual words and phrases of the Declaration of Independence did not weigh heavily among the populace in the 1860s.
Then, once again, you are ignorant. Abraham Lincoln, for instance, stated that he did not a single political thought that was not rooted in the declaration of independance. the very term “republican party” was a reference to the party jefferson founded, which was originally called the Republican party. Not to mention Lincoln’s famous speech where he said that if we denied that slavery was wrong then we would have to tear the declaration of independance out of the statute books.
Again, by the time of emancipation, the three most read works in america was this: the bible, the constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The people at the time credited jefferson. once again, your aggressive ignorance is on display, here.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/11/2011 @ 7:21 amIt’s not ignorance, I think, AW. It’s a Narrative of how the world *needs* to perceived by the Left. Oh well. He is your stalker, not mine.
Simon Jester (b1e000) — 2/11/2011 @ 7:31 amJeez. Politicians ALL claim fidelity to the founding documents. Doesn’t mean that they are. If what Lincoln said was actually true, then he would have been in favor of emancipation — in all the states — from Day One of his political career, wouldn’t he?
Sure, because most people had to, as kids, in schools. But again, reading something and being guided by it in the course of one’s life are two different things. Just because the Declaration was “prominent”, assuming for argument’s sake that it was, doesn’t mean that everybody took to heart specific words and phrases used by Jefferson. Obviously, half the country didn’t.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/11/2011 @ 7:49 amCalhoun was wrong on the morality of slavery, but he was righteous in his defense of the State right to nullification.
And it was, Aaron, a “War of Northern Aggression.” There was no basis in the Constitution. The Dred Scott decision legalized/affirmed that which was most objectionable. Today, a war could be had over the implications of Roe and would be little different in justification. In each case, the side of the Angels would be against the “Rule of Law.”
Ed from SFV (9e2a0c) — 2/11/2011 @ 7:50 amExactly. How dare the North force the South to shoot cannons at Fort Sumter, when all the South wanted to do was peacefully sip mint juleps.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/11/2011 @ 7:56 amKman
> If what Lincoln said was actually true, then he would have been in favor of emancipation — in all the states — from Day One of his political career, wouldn’t he?
Just walk away, kman. you have no idea what you are talking about.
Here’s how lincoln explained it:
> If I saw a venomous snake crawling in the road, any man would say I might seize the nearest stick and kill it; but if I found that snake in bed with my children, that would be another question. [Laughter.] I might hurt the children more than the snake, and it might bite them. [Applause.]… But if there was a bed newly made up, to which the children were to be taken, and it was proposed to take a batch of young snakes and put them there with them, I take it no man would say there was any question how I ought to decide! [Prolonged applause and cheers.]
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/11/2011 @ 7:58 amI don’t have time to expound on this statement at the moment, but I have just finished reading this after ignoring it for expediency’s sake earlier, and this is one of the best entries in all the time I’ve read Patterico.com going back to the mid-’90s.
When I first noticed Aaron Worthing’s posts here, I thought to myself, “This guy thinks just like I do, only he expresses himself better.” I had that thought several moments while reading the above, particularly the part about hypocrisy, and how some falsely imagine it is a greater sin than being sincerely and consistently evil.
Regarding Jefferson & Hemings and the concept of “love” between a master and slave: At the risk of dropping an anvil that causes the conversation to veer off into an indeterminate direction, I will say something that caused consternation the last time I mentioned it online. It has annoyed me for many years that one of the most racist songs of my generation is treated as if it is not. That song is “Brown Sugar” by the Rolling Stones, written by Mick Jagger & Keith Richards.
Now, I personally don’t believe that either Jagger or Richards are necessarily racists. Jagger, we know for a certainty, has fathered a child – his oldest daughter – with a black woman (novelist Marsha Hunt) who has never publicly objected to the song, and many have speculated the song was a tribute to Hunt (in a very weird way). But read the lyrics, and then try to tell me that anyone who grooves to “Brown Sugar” but also points the j’accuse bigot finger at, say, Rush Limbaugh for playing the “Barack the Magic Negro” song is not engaging in “mental gymnastics.”
Let me interject at this point that I am a black man.
Thanks for bring Aaron aboard, Pat.
L.N. Smithee (3b27d7) — 2/11/2011 @ 8:00 amYeah, that’s my point. Lincoln’s “political thoughts” weren’t always rooted in the Declaration of Independence, and you’ve given one fine example.
Kman (d30fc3) — 2/11/2011 @ 8:07 amEd – Kman has a point. Buchanan’s response, and even Lincoln’s response for a while, when the southern states seceded, was to do nothing immediately; to wait until tempers had cooled.
The fighting didn’t begin until after the South attacked Ft. Sumter. The South fired the first actual physical shots.
aphrael (9802d6) — 2/11/2011 @ 8:18 amkman
lol, you were trying to prove lincoln didn’t literally think about the declaration all the time? well, crap you could have proven that by showing him ordering a ham sandwich.
obviously, its an exaggeration. i thought you were smart enough to know that this didn’t need to have been proven. silly me for making that assumption. that doesn’t change the fact that he hated all slavery and wanted it gone, and cited jefferson as his guide on that point.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/11/2011 @ 8:23 amaphrael – the sovereign State of South Carolina had declared the occupying force at Ft. Sumter to be foreign. Those forces would not leave.
What is a sovereign State to do when there is an occupying foreign force on its land?
To be clear….the CSA was dead wrong on human rights. Literally dead wrong. But, imo, legally, they were absolutely within their rights to secede upon the abrogation of its/their rights under the Constitution.
Ed from SFV (adab2a) — 2/11/2011 @ 10:29 amEd – their rights had not been abrogated at the time they seceded. They seceded because of a fear that their rights might be abrogated.
I think it’s an important distinction.
As for Ft. Sumter: the US government built the fort and owned the land underneath it. Under South Carolina’s own legal rules, if South Carolina wanted to exercise eminent domain on the property, it had to pay the US for it. Typically, in such situations, payment is expected before you take possession of the property.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/11/2011 @ 10:31 amaph
i think its simpler than that. the US government can take the land it needs for strategic purposes. that is part of the power to wage war and provide for the common defense.
you really have to be reaching to claim that someone is the aggressor, when you shoot first.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 2/11/2011 @ 10:40 am