The marital infidelity of South Carolina governor Mark Sanford and Nevada senator John Ensign provides yet more ammunition to those who would attack morality.

When I placed Governor Mark Sanford's name and the word "hypocrite" into the Google search engine, it yielded 14,700 results. Since he admitted that he had an extra-marital affair and given the rise of the morality assassins, this isn't surprising. Nothing pleases libertines like finding out that someone who shone light on their darkness has joined them in the muck.

And coming on the heels of Senator John Ensign's admission of infidelity with a campaign staffer, the libertines are in their glory. If you peruse the aforementioned Google search results, you'll find not only copious use of "hypocrite" but also "family values" in quotation marks, as if it's some dubious concept. But, actually, it's more a matter of dubious commentators.

Really, though, it doesn't bother me that Sanford and Ensign must endure the modern pillory. When people sin, there is some price to be paid. In these gentlemen's cases, part of that price will be political, and so be it; all politicians should be held to the highest standards until we root out all those who sink to the lowest ones. So I accept that these men may be discredited. But I won't accept the discrediting of the morality they espoused along with them.  

Yet it's hard to avoid. Every time someone on the "right" falls from grace, be he a man of government or God or something else, critics say two things, one about the message and the other about the messenger. They imply, or even say explicitly, that his professed morals cannot be valid because he failed to live up to them. Second, they also say that you have no right to talk the talk if you can't walk the walk. And both these assertions are quite effective rhetorically.

They're also both nonsense.

But before I address them, let's talk a bit about hypocrisy.

Many leftists are calling Sanford a hypocrite because he condemned Bill Clinton's serial marital infidelity in the 1990s. Again, rhetorically effective, but I doubt it's true. And I know that many of these stone throwers don't understand the meaning of hypocrisy.

I've observed that a great many people who fail to uphold their own ideals, wholeheartedly believe in them at the moment they espouse them; it is that perilous transition between talking and walking where problems occur. To paraphrase Confucius, "It is not that I do not know what to do; it is that I do not do what I know." Was the ancient sage a hypocrite? No, a mortal is more like it.

Hypocrisy isn't saying one thing while doing another; it's saying one thing while intending to do another. To think otherwise is intellectually sloppy at best, as we are then lumping mortals' weakness and their self-serving deception into the same category. For example, two men tell their children not to drink to excess but then get drunk. However, while one of them planned to hit the bottle all along, the other's counsel was sincere. The problem is that he went to a gathering, had drinks waved under his nose and was seduced by the bottle. Now, call him pathetic if you must. Call him weak. Call him a sorry excuse for a father. But a hypocrite he is not.

Now let's return to the attack on morality. The morality of a message isn't dependent upon the morality of the messenger. To dispute this is like questioning whether 2+2 really equals 4 upon learning that a mathematician failed to teach his students math. Or, it's like saying that perfection cannot be perfection because someone who espouses it isn't perfect.

Here we come to an important point: the notion that a conception of morality is indicted by people's failure to uphold it is the precise opposite of the Truth. What would indict it is if they could live up to it, as that would be proof that they are not espousing Truth. For how can you live up to perfection? The reality is that the greatest ideals are the least upheld. And the irony is, anyone who can truly practice what he preaches isn't preaching anything worth practicing.

This brings us to the notion that we mustn't preach anything we don't consistently practice. Such an idea is not only wrong, it's dangerous; it's just another way of saying "Don't encourage virtue." It means that we wouldn't be able to tell our children not to lie because we told lies in our lives, that we shouldn't tell them not to smoke if we're hooked on tobacco. Would this be love?

The wise understand that you uphold high moral standards not to burden people but to liberate them. It's the same reason why a loving father who lacked the discipline to graduate from high school would want his son to become an A student. It's the reason why, even if dad never could be anything but a duffer, he'd want his son to learn proper golf technique and break par.

Say what you will about Sanford's sincerity, at least he offered an unqualified mea culpa. There was no talk about what the definition of "is" is, no parsing of words about what is and isn't a sexual relationship. Would it be better if he said, "Hey, maybe I was mistaken about that morality stuff. What's wrong with having a little fun?"? Love is wanting others to be better than you are and not wanting them to make the same mistakes. That is what the father wants for his son. That is, hopefully, what Sanford wants for others. And it's certainly what we should want for future generations.

While Ensign and Sanford were foolish, what are those who can't draw the distinction between men and morality? It's wise to cast vice-ridden politicians from public office, but there is no greater fool than he who would cast virtue out with them.

 

Selwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Todd Sentell said:

MARK SANFORD. I KNEW YE WHEN Dear Mark, Oh, boy. God almighty, son, you did it up good this time. When I begged you to go a little more crazy and have some college fun thirty years ago you wouldn’t. While I was sitting in front of the dean of students for streaking naked around campus you were writing speeches and studying in the library. You were our student body president and the campus mischief maker was your roommate. As your best friend at the time, I was proud of you then and I’m proud of you now. New York hot shot to real estate tycoon to congressman to governor of my beloved South Carolina, all in khakis and button downs. A real preppy hurricane, you. I have followed your career and admired every minute of it since we first met outside the freshman dorm in 1979. But you’ve got some fixing to do now, wild man. And there’s one more thing I really need to tell you ... man to man ... old friend to old friend ... from a father of sons to another: all the answers to anything and everything in life you have from this point on until you die are going to be found in those precious sons of yours. If you devote the rest of your life to what your sons need and want from you everything will be fine. All of your questions about what to do in any situation—professional, political, personal, familial¬—will be answered after you ponder your boys. Just do that simple, but vital thing every moment. I know this, too. It's the secret to living well. Hell, it's the secret to life. You’ll do this because I know you and still understand you and love you as a friend. You’ll do this ... I know you will ... and you’ll be fine. So will the first lady and the people of South Carolina. Tell them hello for me. I miss them, and I'm pulling for them, too. Your Friend, Todd An award winning journalist, Todd Sentell is the author of the lunatic adventure, Toonamint of Champions. He teaches at a north Atlanta school for kids with learning disabilities

report abuse vote down vote up

June 30, 2009 | url
Votes: +4

Sequin said:

... As a child, one of my parents was a philandering cad. That parent made life hell on earth for the other parent. While the philanderer was out having fun, the rest of us (the loyal parent, my siblings and myself) were left with financial and emotional chaos to deal with. That was many years ago. Since that time, the cheater has been remarried 2 more times. He died alone in a nursing home with no visits from the 4 children he ignored for the sake of his "desires." In the end, what we sow is what we reap. Those of us who feel "entitled" to act out our wants and desires at the expense of our families will reap the wind. We have the freedom NOT to act like animals- let us use it.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 03, 2009
Votes: +3

Sequin said:

	... Yes we have the freedom to act like dogs in heat. However we also have the freedom to love and respect our spouses and children enough to refrain from acting like animals (as this governor has done).
	report abuse vote down vote up

July 03, 2009
Votes: +2