Common Sense about Foley's Follies

by Liberty and Power

Gary Leupp writes about the activities of Mark Foley, the Republican congressman who has just resigned. Republican hypocrisy. Certainly. But Leupp offers a more thoughtful and nuanced view of the affair than most commentators. The prevailing response to the affair is surely a good example of what the sociologist Stanley Cohen called moral panic. In this case, it is the moral panic that arises whenever the heady brew of adolescents, adults and sex, particularly homosexuality, hits the headlines in America.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Gus diZerega - 10/5/2006

There is a delicious other dimension to the issue.

Foley's genuinely illegal activity (rather than abuse of power and teminally bad judgment) seems to be that he broke a law he was significantly responsible for writing, a federal law that tresspassed heavy handedly into pretty clearly state affairs, using a different age of consent (18) that the states where Foley and his object of lust lived (16). As I understand the issues, had Foley written letters or made phone calls he would have been guilty of no crimes so far as we yet know.

The scandal is also exposing a significant part of the right wing and the Republican Party leadership as utterly without scruples. And it is doing so in a very public way. Perhaps it will finally push some classical liberals I know into discovering that their love of liberty trumps their dislike of Democrats.

Lovers of liberty can only be pleased even if some Democrats show themselves a bit over the top with their "children" rhetoric. We need divided government very badly right now, and Foley may help give it to us. It is sad commentary on American culture that this may accomplish what neither Iraq nor torture could, but we take our opportunities as they come.

May the show go on.

Steven Horwitz - 10/4/2006

No argument Aeon. I agree that he should be dealt with the same way any sexual harrasser would be to the extent it was unwanted. To the extent it was mutual, it's AT LEAST hypocrisy and moronic. :)

My point was simply about the discourse, not exculpating him.

Aeon J. Skoble - 10/4/2006

Steve, you make a good point here, but the main issue regarding Foley, IMO, isn't the intrinsic wrongness of his desire to have sex with 16 or 17 year old boys, but with the fact that (a) as his pages, that's prima facie inappropriate, (b)it's exactly the sort of desire he and the GOP leadership would normally brand as immoral and disgusting, and (c) he should have known that IMs and emails leave the equivalent of a paper trail. So, he's unethical, and hypocritical, and a moron. I understand that most politicians are some combination of these three traits, but all 3? That's too much.

Steven Horwitz - 10/4/2006

I think Leupp has it about right. Here are my own related thoughts:

Yeah the guy has problems. But the discourse involving "children" is much more interesting. For example, from the CNN report:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said House Republican leaders knew of
the Foley allegations and "chose to cover it up rather than to protect
these children."

Put aside the "what about the children?" lady from The Simpsons for a moment, and ask whether these are really "children." These are 16 and 17 year olds. Are they of the legal age of consent (which is not
necessarily 18 of course)? More interestingly, would Rep. Pelosi say the same thing if these were 16 and 17 year old *girls* and the question was
whether they could get an abortion without parental consent? Are they "children" in need of protection from their own decision-making? If you
think those girls should be able to (and Pelosi does), because their
intimate lives and bodies are their own, then why do we need to protect
"children" of the same age from a dirty old man?

My point is simply that we have some often conflicting ideas about what
is and isn't "childhood" and who are and aren't "children" in need of
protection. And more often then note, the answer du jour depends on the political winds.