Thursday, March 08, 2007

Truth Be Told


In 2005, as chairman of the Catholic University College Republicans, some students and faculty agitated against one of my planned speaking engagements. The event was a speech on leadership presented by Newt Gingrich, and the protesters' complained that Newt's sorted personal life violated the school's prohibition against speakers not in communion with church doctrine. Illogical theological absurdities aside (never discuss religion in polite company, I always say), yours truly argued in an NPR radio interview that Newt's personal life did not compromise his stock as a great speaker for the event. After all, it seemed obvious to me that failing to conduct oneself morally and the open advocacy of immorality were easily distinguishable actions.

Now, as then, the libs among us proved overwhelmingly unable to appreciate philosophical nuance. On Thursday the media went and worked itself into an excited frenzy over the revelation that Fmr. Speaker Gingrich has admitted to having an affair during the Clinton Impeachment. Ever capable of defending himself, Newt eloquently explained why the media's charges of hypocrisy continue to ring hallow:

"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not
rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."

We all fall down, and certain beloved friends and family among us do so with greater frequency and force than others. Nevertheless, there remains a demonstrable difference between failing to do good on the one hand, and attempting to rationalize and even idealize bad behavior on the other. Individuals need something to "shoot for," so societies safeguard moral norms to encourage just and communally as well as personally beneficial behavior. Newt's affairs retain their disgracefulness, but his sin remains his own to reconcile with the women he disrespected and hurt. Who can Fmr. President Clinton apologize to for making "bj's" and numerous "definitions of is" part of the vocabulary of every elementary school student?

1 comment:

Andi said...

When a leader apoplogizes for behavior that makes them less than an ideal role model they don't always address whether it will/could happen again. Has Newt said anything about this?