Craig Reconsiders Resignation; When Political Strategy Trumps Reason
Reports today suggest that Senator Craig may reconsider his decision to resign following his conviction on a disorderly conduct charge for allegedly soliciting sex from an undercover cop in a men’s restroom. See full story on CNN at http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/05/craig/index.html. The real story behind the story is the fact that Craig is the last on a growing list of GOP politicians whose personal lives have become subject to public scrutiny for failure to live up to the party’s standards on morality and personal values.
The frantic reaction of the party in trying to get Craig to resign quickly is undoubtedly a result of fear of the monster of hypocrisy that keeps raising its ugly head. In the last several election cycles the party has focused much attention of moral issues, and that is what has created the monster. (No indictment of morality here - but politicians are unusually human). Instead of recognizing the folly of a strategy that has depicted a party’s candidates as being more upright and moral, and thinking rationally about Craig’s situation, the party rushed to judgment. Even if the accusations that Craig is gay are not true, the party simply cannot abide the appearance of impropriety. As a result Craig, has received little support from his own party.
From a purely legal perspective, Craig should not have pleaded guilty and should probably fight the charge based on generally poor evidence of any real crime. Peeping through a stall door is no evidence of a crime. In fact, don’t we all do that to see if one is empty? Neither is touching someone’s shoe. We’re all going to be self-conscious the next time we go in an airport bathroom. It would have been much better evidence for the officer to have let the whole thing play out to assure that Craig’s overtures were truly sexual advances and were not misinterpreted. If Craig had offered to meet the officer in a hotel (or worse), it would be different evidence. Not having read the statute, it sounds like Craig’s word against the officer’s on interpretation of guestures. And Craig has not pleaded guilty to solicitation of gay sex in a public restroom. Craig pleaded guility to a misdemeanor in hopes that the incident would never become public, and he would never have to face down accusations that he was gay. Knowing the political environment he operated in, he chose to plead rather than stand and fight a charge for which there was weak evidence.
This is one time the party should have just remained silent and let the situation play itself out. The ugly headed monster was already out (due to the indiscretions of others), so there was really no reason to worry of further damage from Craig’s debacle. The appearance now is that the party will tolerate heterosexual indiscretions, but absolutely will not tolerate any appearance of homosexuality, even if it is not fully substantiated.
But it is also problematic if Craig doesn’t resign because the standard party mantra to enable the party maintain some semblance of moral distinction from other parties is for the fallen to admit rather than deny wrongdoing and to take responsibility. Craig has already said he is not gay and has never been. If he doesn’t resign, it could be viewed by voters as typical denial by politicians who give lip service to standards they themselves never adhere to. And here it would be tantamount to party acceptance of such behavior.
What a mess! The primary problem here is the failure of the political system and people to recognize a legitimate line drawn between issues that are appropriate for political and public concern and those that are not. The Courts have recognized Zones of Privacy around certain issues. So should our political parties and our government. Craig should not resign on such thin charges. And the party should exercise restraint (read less party manipulation) and just let the voters (not politicians) back home decide when Craig comes up for reelection.
