I tried to give the impression in my post last night that, if voters are focusing on and dramatically swayed by the reprehensible pusuits of one Florida congressman, and then also by the 'scandal' of leadership inaction prior to knowledge of the really incriminating evidence, then the depth of their political interest was shallow indeed. And indeed, if they are, then they are not. Daniel Henniger of the Wall Street Journal is of a similar mind in today's Wonder Land column.
As a result, we live now in an era awash in cultural confusions. The tides bring in weird phenomena, like the Mark Foley story, leave them on the beach overnight, then drag them back out to sea before there's time to make much sense of what we saw. As often as not, we don't even try. The Web and digital technology have ramped up the cultural velocity to warp speed. MySpace, YouTube--the once-bright line between the private and public spheres has evaporated.
This has had an effect on the way we think, or don't. Clarity--thinking clearly--is harder than ever to achieve, because clarity assumes a degree of general social agreement about things. For instance, time was that most people would agree that putting a crucifix in urine and calling it art doesn't qualify as anything but bad thinking. But no, we had to have a big argument over that. At the end of her current stage act, Madonna makes herself the central figure in a crucifixion scene. No problem. Most reviewers simply describe it, and move on.
Challenge over the past 40 years became a more powerful social value than clarity. One of the byproducts of challenge is that you don't have to think very much--about the point or the consequences. Just do it. The act of challenge is its own justification. And one of the byproducts of constant challenge is aggressive confusion. Another seer of the Sixties, Bob Dylan, saw what was happening by 1967: "There's too much confusion here, I can't get no relief." Denny Hastert, meet the joker.
As a result of this confusion it has become harder than ever to sort "things I would never do" from "things that should never be done by anyone." The Amish massacre and suicide bombings fall into the latter category; other situations are not so cut and dried. For instance, there is an organization that supports and lobbies for acceptance of Mr. Foley's desires. Under their criteria Foley may simply have been fishing for willing partners.
Mr. Henniger also writes:
Bowing to the gods of the news cycle, let us undertake the great questions of the moment. Where does post-modern American ethics place Mark Foley's homosexuality on a scale of 1 to 10--a 1 being just another gay guy and a 10 being a compulsive, predatory sex offender? What might fall in between seems to have confused Denny Hastert, two newspapers, one TV network and the FBI. In the event, Mr. Hastert, as the point man, is being driven from office for having failed, in hindsight, to recognize the obvious.
In chess you look for checkmate, a position of pieces on the board that leaves your opponent either no moves, or only futile moves unable to alter the ultimate outcome of the game. Often in chess you can look back at the series of moves and pick out the move that cost that game, the one that was an inadequate response to the situation.
In a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" paradox, Speaker Hastert and the others involved, without the benefit of hindsight and the knowledge of more sinister events, were trapped. The queen was under attack with nary a safe move available. They weren't presented with hard evidence of malfeasance. If they failed to investigate the much weaker emails and nebulous warnings they may have received, and worse behavior showed up, as it did, then they stand accused of a cover-up. If they investigate aggressively and don't find anything quite so morally objectionable that it is "fireable," - and they claim to have had no suggestion of such a fireable offense prior to last week - then they are harrassing a gay Republican.
This 'scandal' should affect primarily one Florida congressional district's voters, and a collection of pages and their parents. Now, if someone can prove that Mr. Hastert and the leadership knew definitively of anything "fireable" and still did nothing, or at least prove, and not just insinuate or assume, that there were primarily political calculations in how it was handled, then I'm all ears.
And, about that chess match? The Democrats may feel they have checkmate at the moment with the Foley matter and surrounding 'scandal' in locking up the midterm election. But the fat lady ain't singin' yet. I'm betting this isn't the last of their October surprises.
(unless something surprising, unusual, incriminating, shocking or otherwise noteworthy comes to light, this will be the last time I write on Foley-gate)
10/6/06 1225: Jay Tea writes on the story, making a number of valid points.
