Absolutely Disgusting

I’ve made a practice of arguing against the concept of moral absolutes. I’ve heard the clichés of the uber-conservatives about the essential truth of absolutism and I can’t accept it. The space from the moral absolute defined by Jerry Falwell or James Dobson is just a step or two down the slippery slope to the absolutes of Muqtada al-Sadr and Osama Bin Laden. Fundamentalists thrive on absolutism. There is no room for nuance or compromise or consensus building or discretion when dealing with absolutes. The world is reduced to black or white without shades of gray. That satisfies the simple mind, but doesn’t work for me.

The argument usually revolves around common absolutes. Things like not killing other human beings. But, we clearly do so and we do it with the authority bestowed by the law and society. We kill in war and we kill for crimes committed against the body politic. We kill in varying degrees from negligent homicide to manslaughter to levels of murder. We kill justifiably and we kill pre-meditatedly. So, there is no absolute regarding killing.

We lie. Truth is immutable, we are told. But discretion comes into play in responding to the common query, “does this dress make me look fat?” We don’t tell our children the truth in response to every question and we sometimes glorify the lie with editorial hyperbole as in “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.” So, there is no absolute in honesty.

But, this week I find myself facing an absolute truth in what I believe is ethical and moral standards of behavior. And, ex-Congressman Mark Foley has brought me to this absolutism. It isn’t simply his disgusting behavior with teen-aged Congressional pages that supposedly were entrusted to the oversight of our nation’s finest leaders for their development. It goes well beyond that to the entire spectrum of behavior that has been displayed in the entire scandal.

The actions of Foley are base and vile. Think the worst sort of sniveling, pandering, adolescent, just-discovering-sex, conversations. Then have them between a 52-year old Congressman and a teen-aged boy. Locker room, scatological, immature and you’ve got the picture. You don’t have to go to ABC news to read the nine pages of transcript of the IM sequence of just one of these dialogues. Save yourself a dose of disgust.

Then follow up with the admission and resignation. Fine. He did what he needed to do. But then get further disgusted by the newly au courant method of dodging responsibility. He acknowledges that he is an alcoholic and checking into rehab. Forgive me for noting that drinking doesn’t make you a pedophile anymore than it make you an anti-Semite, Mr. Gibson notwithstanding. Drinking makes you stupid at times, but not deviant. So, no free pass for your problem there Mr. Foley.

Now check the lawyer for Foley with his pathetic ploy to gain sympathy. He announces that Foley is gay. So what? Gay does not equate with pedophile despite many folks’ ill-founded misconception that it does. Gay is not socially accepted behavior, but it is not preying upon adolescents for whom you have responsibility for guidance and mentoring. And gay does not justify the hypocrisy of being chairman of a committee that is dedicated to legislating for protection of children while simultaneously soliciting them. Is this supposed to be an example of “catch-a-thief” logic to get quality laws against predation of children by adults?

Oh, and by the way, the attorney goes on. Mr. Foley was abused by a “clergyman” when he was a teenager. Can’t the lawyer say priest? Regardless, while childhood abuse might be traumatic, it doesn’t turn someone gay. It doesn’t make them an alcoholic. And it doesn’t make them a pedophile. On the contrary, it should make them more sensitive to the vulnerability of the young.

Go further than beating up the deserving Mr. Foley. What about the spinning and posturing we now get from the partisans of the political scene. Some accuse ABC of being in collusion with the Democrats and releasing this on election eve for political impact. So what? Disgusting behavior is timeless. That’s an absolute. Whenever found, it should be released to the public when it concerns a public figure such as a congressman.

Some wonder who knew what and when. It is apparent that many knew lots and for a long time. That is unconscionable behavior by those in authority. They should have acted aggressively to correct the situation. They failed. They have demonstrated a lack of the moral fiber expected of our leaders. That is an absolute. Hastert was told. He knew. He should be gone.

There are contrasts to Gerry Studds and Barney Frank and even to Bill Clinton. The fact that others from the other side of the aisle have transgressed is not justification for the failures on this side of the political aisle. What others have done is their business and how it was dealt with may be their failing. What is done by conservatives and moral absolutists is our business. We should demand more of our leaders. We should expect behavior consistent with public pronouncements. We should require that those who violate our trust should be punished severely. We have earned the right to impose this upon those who would represent us and present themselves as morally superior. If they fail, they should expect severe consequences.

Three weeks ago, I felt strongly that the predictions of a Republican catastrophe in this coming election were exaggerated and media driven. The facts were too strong to be overcome by the sound bites and spin cycle of the left. Now, we’ve seen one more slip in the foul slime that appears to cover the floor of Congress and it might mean the loss of a lot of Congressional seats. They could have prevented this by simply acting the way they said they knew they should.