There's a lot of talk lately about hypocrisy in Washington.

Will someone tell me why the Harry Reid scandal (examined here by Ed Morrissey) does not involve hypocrisy?

Is it because hypocrisy only involves sex?

Glenn Reynolds (who linked the above) had an earlier observation which caught my attention:

With Republicans, it's sex. With Democrats, it's money.

I know that the Republicans are said to be into sexual morality, but aren't the Democrats into money morality? ("Moral collectivism" versus economic socialism?)

For many years the people who want the government to leave them alone have observed two apparently divergent tendencies:

the right (well, at least certain elements thereof) wants to get into your pants (regulate sexual morality)

the left wants to get into your purse (regulate financial morality)

Harry Reid's scandal was important enough to make it into today's Inquirer. Even if it was only on page 4 (just about a story about the federal deficit drop), at least it was there. I suppose they could have given it a sexier headline than the boring "Sen. Reid did not disclose land transfer, papers show."

However (say the Democrats), while Reid was technically at fault, the real fault lies with a "larger culture":

Stanley Brand, former Democratic chief counsel of the House, said Reid should have disclosed the 2001 sale. Brand said the omission fit a larger culture in Congress in which lawmakers were not following or enforcing their own rules.

"If it is not enforced, people think it's not enforced and they get lax and sloppy," Brand said.

That's progress, of sorts.

And how can it be hypocrisy if it's just part of the culture?

I'm just wondering. Suppose some Republican spokesmen had tried to blame the "larger culture" for Mark Foley's page problem. Would that have worked?

I don't think so. Because according to certain "framing" principles (not to be confused with the principles of the framing, and I'm not imitating the Manolo's style of speaking, OK?) , Republicans are supposed to be the traditional daddies, while Democrats are supposed to be traditional mommies:

To begin with, it has often been remarked, as, e.g., by P. J. O'Rourke, that liberals want government to be their Mommy, i.e., give them cookies and tuck them into bed, while conservatives want government to be their Daddy, i.e., give them a good paddling when they're naughty. A liberal, George Lakoff, wrote a book based on that concept, Moral Politics. In it, he argues that each camp views the country, and even the world, in terms of the kind of family in which they grew up, and/or their ideal family. For liberals, this ideal is the Nurturing Parent (either mother or father as the sexes are believed to be equal*) who teaches empathy (the primary virtue) through loving example. For conservatives, this ideal is the Strict Father (the man is usually perceived as by nature dominant*) who teaches self-discipline and self-reliance (the primary virtues) through rewards and stringent punishments. Conservatives view the world as a jungle, full of dangers and temptations, and one must be morally strong in order to deal with these. Libertarians, who don't want the government to be their parent, are a variant on the conservative world-view, emphasizing the value of self-reliance.

And here's Jonah Goldberg on Lakoff framing:

Lakoff's argument boils down to this: Facts do not matter. "People think in frames," he writes. "If the facts do not fit a frame, the frame stays and the facts bounce off."

By frames, he means ideological blinders or emotional categories or familial roles. Or something. Whatever they are, Lakoff believes that Democrats need to change their language to appeal by exploiting "frames," not dealing with facts. Much of his analysis stems from his belief that pretty much all conservatives act in bad faith.

There's something being missed that I think is important, and that's the idea of accountability and personal responsibility. Bad as Foley was, he's out, and no one is defending him, even though Democrats have gotten away with worse.

I think the problem may be that sex is by definition sexier than money. Sexual hypocrisy is therefore sexier than financial hypocrisy, and logic has nothing to do with it.

Thus, when there's a choice of frames, the "Republican-Daddy-Sex-Evil!" frame is a lot more attractive than the "Democrat-Mommy-hapless-financial-victim-of-complex-irregularities" frame.

Whether the people who think this way can ever be trusted to leave ordinary people alone is beside the point.

Who asked for such "parents"? I'd hate to think that voting implies consent.

UPDATE (10/13/06): Far from defending Reid, today's Philadelphia Inquirer (in an editorial linked by Glenn Reynolds) has criticized him severely, arguing that "unless Reid comes up with a better explanation for this lack of disclosure, Democrats should not keep him as their leader in the new Congress in 2007."

And in a classic understatement yesterday, Glenn opined that "if a Republican were involved it would be getting a lot more attention."

I think Harry Reid should have clinched the deal with a dirty email.

UPDATE (10/14/06): The Anchoress has a great post on what makes the Reid scandal so unsexy. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Reid's sordid financial affairs are not sexy enough for the MSM. (His sex life would probably be considered even less sexy.)