In an update to Glenn Reynolds' post about Ted Haggard, a Neal Stephenson character is quoted thusly:

That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code [...] does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code.

Is dishonesty about sex part of sex? Or is the coverup worse than the crime?

This is frustrating, as these are not easy questions. In previous posts I've asked whether there is a double standard for hypocrisy. Most of the time when we hear the charge, it involves sex. I'm not sure why, but it's probably because sex is where even reasonable people tend to lose sight of their ability to reason clearly.

I think one of the problems with focusing on hypocrisy is that it misses -- or (especially in the case of sex) subsumes -- the underlying moral issue of honesty. Because sexual dishonesty is so common, this is an underlying issue most people would be quite comfortable to miss. (I think one of the reasons Bill Clinton's perjury was excused was because it was about sex, and not about, say, cocaine.)

If an admitted heroin addict advised people not to use heroin, few would call him a hypocrite. When he last used heroin would not really be seen as all that relevant. Even if he was still using, society would see him as someone speaking from experience -- as long as that important fact was disclosed. But like it or not, that admitted junkie, along with an alcoholic advising people not to drink, a smoker advising people not to smoke, or a fat man advising people not to overeat -- none of them would seem as hypocritical as a homosexual advising people not to be gay. Or a regular orgy participant advising chastity.

For reasons which escape me, people would be more likely to take seriously the advice of a junkie not to shoot heroin or a fat man not to overeat, than they would a sex maniac advising against sex. Why? Is this because people are simply assumed, even expected, to lie about sex? I think dishonesty is expected in matters of sexual indiscretion -- to the point where it is almost seen as inseparable from the sex.

But there's an additional problem beyond ordinary sexual dishonesty. Lacking in credibility as it would seem for a orgy participant to advise against sex, what makes Pastor Haggard worse is that he's not merely dispensing advice based on his admitted status; he's claiming not to be doing what he condemns.

Because of this element of deception, Haggard is more like an anti-drug activist or drug treatment counselor caught using drugs than an admitted drug addict advising people not to do what he did.

It's not so much the hypocrisy; it's goes to honesty and credibility. If you are going to advise people not to do something, and you do whatever it is you're advising against, I think there might be a duty of disclosure. That's because when you condemn something in other people, you're making it relevant if you do the thing you condemn, simply because of the credibility issue. I have no problem with advising people based on experience; I've made all kinds of mistakes and I still make them.

But let's suppose I decided to become a lecturer against the evils of blogging, and I traveled about, telling students not to succumb to the temptations of the Internet, and warning everyone that blogging is a profound evil that threatens Western civilization. That blogging should be outlawed. That responsible politicians and leading citizens should shut down all their blogs, that no blogger should ever be allowed to work with impressionable young people, etc.

Wouldn't it be at least relevant that I write a blog? Whether I'm a hypocrite isn't so much the point as whether I am hiding from people the material facts they need to decide whether what I say is credible.

The problem, of course, is that in the case of crusaders against certain things, credibility is deflated by disclosure. An anti-pornography activist found to have a gigantic undisclosed pornography collection does damage to his own cause. Unlike the junkie or the overeater, he's unlikely to ever be taken seriously as an advocate against what he claims is damaging to others.

I don't know whether this is fair, but there is definitely a double standard.

Thus, in the case of a would-be anti-sex activist, sexual peccadilloes are relevant because they are a career killer. However, the fact that they should be disclosed is precisely why they won't be.

Assuming the allegations against him are true, what fascinates me the most about Haggard is that by the moral standards he claims to live by, he'd do better to admit the truth. Yet because of his position and his career, he must deny the truth. If that is in fact what he is doing, then I think he's a hypocrite of the old-fashioned variety. Returning to Stephenson, the old-fashioned hypocrite was:

someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception -- he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy

I'm still frustrated by this, but at least I can cling to the modern saying that the coverup is worse than the crime.

(Not that there has to be a crime....)

AFTERTHOUGHT: I'm now realizing that I may have stumbled upon a rather disturbing paradox. What if upholding sexual morality is seen traditionally as being best served by allowing dishonesty in sexual matters? Might that mean not that the coverup can be worse than the crime, but that the truth can be worse than the crime?

As I say, it's complicated.

UPDATE (11/04/06): Via Andrew Sullivan, David Frum defends this morality paradox:

Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

I don't see easy answers, but I'm still thinking about Monica and the blue dress. Was Bill's perjury perjury, or was it excusable because he was trying to uphold morality? Might Bubba have been seen (ridiculous as it may sound) as someone who in Frum's words, "regard[ed] his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works"?

What is preaching, anyway?

I'm not trying to be flippant, but this all reminds me of the lyrics to a Motown classic:

Hey, Mama, is it true what they say
That Papa never worked a day in his life
Some bad talk going around sayin`
Papa had there outside children
And another wife
That ain`t right

Heard some talk about Papa and his storefront
Preachin`
Talkin` about saving souls and all the time
Leaching
And dealing in dirt
Stealin` in the name of the Lord

But Mama she just said

"Papa was a rollin` stone
Wherever he laid his hat was his home
And when he died
All he left us was alone" (repeat)