Friday, July 13, 2007

The Micro-Pundit - A Liberal Columnist Calls for Discression

Even though I feel some amount of hypocrisy is inherent to human nature, I still despise it.  Which is why I thoroughly enjoy exposing hypocrisy wherever I stumble across it.  But even I have to admit that my personal zeal in this area sometimes gets the better of me, leading me to come down hard on people for the minor inconsistencies we’re all guilty of alone instead of focusing only on the major hypocrisies.  And, if I think about it, I have to admit that my zeal hasn’t necessarily been all that conducive to improving discourse and understanding.

Which is why I found today’s Washington Post commentary by E.J. Dionne to be so interesting.  In it, Mr. Dionne suggests that the poor state of public and political discourse in the United States would be well served if we overlooked private immorality and hypocrisy like that of Senator David Vitter.  And, as someone who felt at the time, and still strongly feels, that President Clinton’s marital infidelities while in the Oval Office were a private matter between Bill, Hillary, Chelsea, and Monica, I can’t help but cringe at my own hypocrisy as I’ve reveled in the blogosphere and editorial abuse Sen. Vitter has suffered due to his own marital infidelities.

Hypocrisy matters, especially if it’s a matter of public policy, but instead of focusing on Sen. Vitter’s marital problems, we should instead focus on his politics.  Yes, the fact that he’s an admitted adulterer should degrade his moral standing on the “family values” issue, but that is probably the limit of how far his infidelity should matter in the public sphere.  His possible pay for influence donor issues, on the other hand, should be aired fully.

As Mr. Dionne said, let’s leave private morality, and immorality, alone except where it interferes with our legislator’s abilities to represent their constituents.  We just might improve our government’s ability to develop compromise and be effective in the process.