Sexual Hypocrisy and Democratic Weakness: Just Another Day in the USA

So Anthony Weiner has resigned. Lacking anything better over which to obsess, the rapidly declining US media created a faux scandal that forced Weiner to resign. The story is very brief. The former House member sent an electronic picture of himself wearing briefs to a woman. Rather than creating a fictional email and Twitter account, Weiner sent the pictures using his official email address. He also used various accounts bearing his name in order to engage in sexual banter and to flirt with several women. The outrage surrounding this issue forced Weiner to resign. Before he resigned, several Democrats – including President Obama – told Weiner that he should quit. This decision should upset anyone who believes in personal liberty.

Weiner’s conduct was reckless for a politician. He risked getting caught and subjected to a political scandal. This observation, however, does not indict the underlying behavior itself. It only means that he was not politically savvy. With respect to Weiner’ conduct, however, there are no allegations (at least credible ones) that he violated any criminal laws, committed a tort, or violated any statutory rights held by any of the women with whom he communicated. In fact, it seems that several of them willingly engaged in sexual banter with Weiner. In other words, Weiner resigned because he engaged in noncriminal sexual conduct that appears to have been consensual or otherwise nonabusive.

Puritanical Values

The United States has a long and tired history of suppressing consensual sexual conduct. Historically, white women have been viewed as “sexually pure”; they should not engage in or be exposed to sex outside of marriage. Weiner crossed this socially constructed boundary. Dignified male politicians should act like “gentleman.” Their sex should remain private and restrained. Weiner crossed this boundary as well. And teenagers, LGBT persons and persons of color have all been stigmatized due to sexual conduct and stereotypes. The reaction to Weiner implicates this long puritanical history that seeks to strip away sexuality in very racial and gendered terms.

Despite the ways in which the reaction to Weiner implicates a troubling slice of US history, many self-proclaimed liberal critics refuse to defend Weiner. Instead, they continually make the observation that his behavior was stupid, that he was asking to get caught. Not too long ago, people routinely made this same argument when gays and lesbians who came out of the closet experienced employment discrimination. Although Weiner’s situation is not completely analogous to the struggle for LGBT rights, the reaction to his conduct sounds eerily familiar. Rather than focusing on his right to engage in consensual sexual conduct, many people are simply arguing that he should not have done so. But this does not explain why the country treats sexual expression as immoral.

Hypocritical Values

The United States ranks among the world’s largest markets for pornography and prostitution. Nevertheless, it retains relatively puritanical views about sex. Until recently, federal law shielded the supposedly strong and heroic members of the armed forces from the presumed threat of homosexuality. States have rushed to ban same-sex marriage. A significant portion of the country opposes teaching teenagers about birth control – even though teenage pregnancy remains a serious problem.

Down in the Bible Belt, residents of Dallas, Texas often joke that the city has more churches and strip joints than any city in the nation. In Texas, however, state law bans the sale of “sex toys,” unless they are necessary for medical purposes. Texas treats sex toys as obscenity – unless you need them for medical purposes.

These are just a few examples of the hypocritical stance towards sexuality in the US. Weiner's resignation brings that hypocritical history to the surface.

Weakness

Rather than treating Weiner’s conduct as politically unwise – but generally harmless – Democrats rushed to kick him out of office. Predictably, the party caved when it could have resisted a silly scandal.

Ironically, the weak party has now kicked out one of its most passionate and fearless members. But this is typical of Democrats -- very typical and disappointing. Several other politicians on both sides of the aisle have suffered political scandal, but they kept fighting (remember Clinton). Today, the Democrats cannot fight at all. They have the spines of slugs.

The United States: A Nation of Hypocrites

I have said it before. In light of a new survey, however, it is worth repeating: the United States is a nation of hypocrites. According to a Bloomberg survey, most Americans want to reduce the national deficit, but they want to do so without any cuts to entitlements, which are among the biggest budget items. Also, they only want tax increases for the wealthiest individuals. So, Americans want to keep the rate of spending, maintain the same tax rates for most people, and magically eliminate the deficit. Good luck.

Yes, It Is Hypocrisy: Condemning the Stimulus, Spending the Stimulus

Bloomberg joins several other media outlets to detail the hypocrisy among Republican members of Congress who opposed the stimulus package, but who lobbied for money that the statute allocated. In particular, many Republicans said that the stimulus would not create jobs (or had not created jobs), but then lobbied for funds on behalf of constituents claiming that the money would help create jobs. A prior entry on Dissenting Justice covered this topic.

According to Bloomberg:

Alabama Republicans Jo Bonner and Robert Aderholt took to the U.S. House floor in July, denouncing the Obama administration’s stimulus plan for failing to boost employment. “Where are the jobs?” each of them asked.

Over the next three months, Bonner and Aderholt tried at least five times to steer stimulus-funded transportation grants to Alabama on grounds that the projects would help create thousands of jobs.

They joined more than 100 congressional Republicans and several Democrats who, after voting against the stimulus bill, wrote Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood seeking money from $1.5 billion the plan set aside for local road, bridge, rail and transit grants. The $862 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed last year with no Republican votes in the House and three in the Senate.

Bonner said opposing the stimulus doesn’t mean he shouldn’t help Alabama projects compete for grants. “It is my role to ensure that their request is considered by the federal agency,” he said in an e-mail. . . .

Indiana Republican Steve Buyer, who last year called the stimulus bill a “sham,” wrote LaHood -- a former Republican congressman from Illinois -- to seek $80 million for a highway construction project that “is vital to the economic health of North Central Indiana” At the end of the letter Buyer wrote: “Ray, appreciate your personal attention. Steve.”

As the quoted text indicates, Bonner has floated the curious argument that opposing the stimulus and lobbying for stimulus money are not inconsistent. Even if one were to buy that assertion, it is absolutely inconsistent to argue, as Bonner does, that the stimulus will not create jobs -- but then demand money for constituents on the grounds that the stimulus will create jobs.

Bloomberg also reports that several House Democrats who voted against the stimulus are also waiting in line to get money for their districts. Rather than educate voters and take principled positions, members of Congress are trying to play both sides of the issue.

The GOP's Utter Hypocrisy Regarding Stimulus Funds

Think Progress has a very revealing report on Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty's hypocrisy regarding the use of stimulus funds. During a December 2009 interview on Fox News, Pawlenty scoffed at the idea of states using stimulus money to close budget gaps. Pawlenty argued that the stimulus would simply "delay the inevitable for most states." He also said that stimulus funding would represent a "Band-Aid" approach to states' fiscal crises and that states needed to reduce their spending commitments rather than seek federal assistance.

Apparently, Pawlenty has quietly shifted his position. Yesterday, he submitted a proposal to balance Minnesota's budget. Although Pawlenty proposes deep cuts in government spending for needy persons, he also proposes tax cuts for business. Also, nearly 1/3 of the money to close the state budget deficit would come from stimulus funds.

Pawlenty Is Not Alone
Pawlenty is not alone in his stimulus hypocrisy. A Wall Street Journal article lists the names of many Republicans who voted against the stimulus but who lobbied to secure stimulus money for their constituents. In letters supporting their constituents, many of the Republicans stated that the stimulus money would help create jobs. Republicans, however, continue to deny that the stimulus has created jobs.

A Nation of Hypocrites: Why Do Americans Expect More For Less?

Jacob Weisberg's latest essay in Slate offers a very provocative explanation for the bitter standoff in national politics: American voters embrace highly contradictory positions. Although other commentators have made similar observations regarding public opinion in the past, Weisberg's analysis seems quite relevant to contemporary politics. Here is a sample:

Anybody who says you can't have it both ways clearly hasn't been spending much time reading opinion polls lately. One year ago, 59 percent of the American public liked the stimulus plan, according to Gallup. A few months later, with the economy still deeply mired in recession, a majority of the same size said Obama was spending too much money on it. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind, of course, but opinion polls over the last year reflect something altogether more troubling: a country that simultaneously demands and rejects action on unemployment, deficits, health care, climate change, and a whole host of other major problems. Sixty percent of Americans want stricter regulations of financial institutions. But nearly the same proportion says we're suffering from too much regulation on business. That kind of illogic—or, if you prefer, susceptibility to rhetorical manipulation—is what locks the status quo in place.

Weisberg contends that Americans hate government in the "abstract" but love it in the "particular." They claim to want less government spending and a reduction in taxes and the deficit, but they want more services from the government, which means more spending and taxes and, potentially, greater deficits.

While Weisberg is certainly liberal, he tries to view this problem free of partisanship. Both sides, Weisberg argues, contribute to American hypocrisy: "Where Republicans encourage popular myths about taxes, spending, and climate change, Democrats tend to stoke our fantasies about the sustainability of entitlement spending as well as about the cost of new programs."

My Take: Weisberg's analysis has a lot of truth to it. In the recent past, Americans supported two costly wars with simultaneous tax cuts. Now, they are foaming at the mouth over deficits. Many of these same anti-deficit folks want the government "out of Medicare," which is about as contradictory a statement as possible. The country went into a deep panic when banks were failing, but now people across the political spectrum loathe the fact that two administrations have spent money to stem the crisis and stabilize financial markets. Finally, as Weisberg observes, a majority of Americans want the government to support people who are unemployed, but they apparently do not want to spend any money to accomplish this goal.

What causes people to embrace such inconsistent positions? I would attribute this situation in part to the nation's collectively short attention span, impatience, and the American Idolization of the national culture which causes people to crave shiny results, rather than dealing with the ugly and difficult reality. American pop culture glamorizes some of the most unglamorous work -- crime scene investigation, surgeries, autopsies, policing, and even war. Apparently, Americans can't handle the truth. In turn, the inability to approach the world honestly is probably a significant factor behind hypocrisy and inconsistent behavior.

Update: Kathy Kattenburg at the Moderate Voice has a similar take: Politicians Are All the Same. They Give Us Exactly What We Ask For. Matt Yglesias does not.

The Bloggacuda Returns: Sarah Palin and the Problem With "Common Sense"

The Bloggacuda is back with a new (ghostwritten?) op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that laments the prospect of healthcare reform proposed by "the Democrats." Palin's "new" essay offers more distortions and more hypocrisy.



Palin and the Problem of "Common Sense"

Palin describes the Democrats' proposals as resting on the notion that "increased government involvement" can fix the healthcare system. She then contests this view, arguing that:

Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."

Adolph Reed, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, once said during a lecture that "the problem with common sense is that people use it as an excuse not to read." Apparently, Palin falls into this category. If Palin had actually read the various proposals, she would not have seen a "one-size-fits-all plan." But Palin and other conservatives have consistently resorted to deception when discussing Democrat-sponsored proposals for healthcare reform.



Palin Seemingly Unaware of Insurance Company Bureaucrats

Palin also cannot resist mentioning her infamous death panel distortion, proudly stating that the argument resonated with many Americans. True -- but many of the same people fell for the bogus claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That lie cost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.



Palin argues that Obama wants to create a nongovernmental bureaucracy to make decisions regarding life and death Medicare treatments. Apparently, the Bloggacuda lives in a parallel universe where insurance company bureaucrats do not already determine the treatments that companies will cover for plan participants. Instead, in Palin's world, doctors and patients make these decisions exclusively. Insurance companies simply pay the bill.



Palin's argument rests on a stunningly inaccurate understanding of the nation's healthcare system. Private bureaucrats already determine what treatments to cover, and doctors who desire reimbursement (i.e., all doctors) comply with those guidelines.



Also, Palin seems to criticize the nongovernmental nature of a proposed Medicare advisory panel, but this objection conflicts with her "more government is bad" narrative. In any event, the advisory group would only "advise" the federal government; any actual changes in Medicare coverage would require the approval of Congress.



Palin Blames Democrats for Expensive Policies That Bush Created

Palin also accuses Democrats of creating the very "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" that Obama has pledged to cut from Medicare. Palin's argument, however, proves that the "common sense" crowd does not read.



When Obama proposed cutting wasteful subsidies to Medicare providers, he was referring to President Bush's implementation of the privately administered Medicare Advantage program, which costs 13% more than the traditional governmental plan. A Republican -- not a Democrat -- introduced the Medicare subsidies that Obama has promised to cut.



Here's an even more stunning fact: Senator John McCain -- the leader of the McCain/Palin ticket -- also proposed reversing Bush and cutting these subsidies in order to reign in the expense of the program. During the presidential campaign, this proposal had wide bipartisan support. Palin's flawed analysis suggests that she did not pay attention to or did not understand the very issues she faced as a candidate for Vice President.



Palin's Shameful Cherry-Picking of Congressional Budget Office Reports

Palin continues to engage in blatant cherry-picking of data to support her claims. She cites a CBO study that shows the House proposal would add over $200 billion to the deficit over 10 years (but it would also insure 47 million more people). But as the Liberal Values Blog thoroughly details, Palin ignores a CBO study which concludes that tort reform -- something she has embraced as an essential component of healthcare reform -- will not reduce medical costs.



Palin's Contradictory Embrace of "Big Guv'ment"

Finally, while Palin's op-ed decries "big guv'ment," the Bloggacuda wants to expand the reach of the national government. Palin advocates tort reform, which, as I have previously argued, would add a new layer of federal control over the judicial systems in 50 states, constrain jury decisions, and limit the ability of private litigants to seek justice as they deem appropriate.



Palin also favors "giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers," but the favorable treatment of employer health plans already represents the largest tax expenditure. Palin's proposal would cause an even greater revenue loss and increase the deficit.



Palin also supports replacing Medicare with vouchers, a plan proposed by the conservative Cato Institute. Without the government or other centralized entity to negotiate cheaper costs, the price of health insurance for seniors would likely soar, causing them to exert their political power and demand annual voucher increases. The spending implications are tremendous. On the other hand, a refusal to support higher vouchers would sound a lot like the "rationing" of care, disguised as individual decisionmaking.



Palin's op-ed offers a more thoughtful approach than her previous commentary, but it does not provide any viable solutions to the problems that plague the nation's medical services markets.

Ditto. . . .

Here's the latest on death panels, courtesy of Time Magazine:

Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning." The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients.

Oh, and guess who voted "yea": Senator Grassley!

PS: "Ditto" simply means, more hypocrisy. . . .

For earlier articles on death-panel hypocrisy, see:

Sarah Palin Sponsored "Euthanasia Day" as Alaska Governor

Dumb and Dumber on Death and Dying

Today's Shameless Hypocrite Award Winner: Senator Charles Grassley

Today's Shameless Hypocrite Award Winner: Senator Charles Grassley

Just added: Would President Hillary Clinton Have Run Away From Healthcare Reform Like President Obama Is Reportedly Going to Do?

* * * * * * * * *

It is amazing how base the public discourse on healthcare reform has become. Apparently, the riotous behavior has calmed down, but this has seemingly morphed into utter distortion and hypocrisy. Today's bandit: Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa.

Grassley has made sure that a completely false description of the proposed healthcare reform legislation remains alive. Fact: The proposed legislation would compensate medical providers who counsel older patients regarding "end-of-life" decisions. The information provided during the nonmandatory sessions would include informing patients of their right to establish a living will or a medical directive, to resist or to seek life-sustaining medical treatment, etc. This is good medicine -- which is often overlooked until it is too late.

Recently, Sarah Palin distorted the content of the proposed legislation when she said it would create governmental "death panels" that would pick and choose who gets to live. As horribly deceptive as this statement was, other conservatives have continued to offer it as the truth.

Today, Grassley signed on to the lie when he criticized the proposed reform by saying that the United States "should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma." Question: Will Iowa voters pull the plug on Grassley's Senate career for this rotten tomato-deserving commentary?

Startling Hypocrisy
Grassley's misrepresentation of the proposed legislation is not his worst offense. Hypocrisy is. Although Grassley opposes the hypothetical notion of the government intervening in a decision to remove life support, when presented with an actual case involving this issue, Grassley's actions did not match the "anti-government" rhetoric he is spewing today. The case surrounded the life of Terry Schiavo.

Although Schiavo's husband had engaged in litigation for nearly a decade in Florida to reject life-sustaining medical treatment on her behalf, Congress nevertheless decided to pass a law to extend the case even longer. The hospice had already removed the feeding and hydration apparatus from Schiavo, but Congress still intervened.

Although the Senate voted by unanimous consent, Grassley expressed his views at the time: "I support the effort to protect Terri Schiavo. It’s the first case of its kind, a chance to choose life over death. I gave the option to life. . . ." But Grassley did not support "life." Instead, he supported governmental intrusion into one of the most delicate situations we face in our lives. Today, he supposedly abhors the very action that he proudly endorsed in the recent past. Grassley's utterly contradictory stances make him the shameless hypocrite of the day. Congratulations, Senator!

UPDATE: Grassley is a staunch pro-lifer, who earned a perfect 100 score by the National Right to Life Committee. Grassley definitely suffers from the same contradictory approach to "big government" that plagues many other opponents to healthcare reform. The pro-choice lobby believes that the government should not interfere with a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy. Grassley votes to make the choice for her. Who's really afraid of big government?

UPDATE II: Grassley is also a staunch supporter of the death penalty. The government actually pulls the plug in this instance!

UPDATE III: The hypocrisy gets thicker by the day:

Dumb and Dumber on Death and Dying

Sarah Palin Sponsored "Euthanasia Day" as Alaska Governor

Ditto. . . .