On Governors, Glass Houses, and Greek Words

So, South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford has been in the news a lot because of his affair. I listen to a fair amount of talk radio, finding the majority of music radio stations to be dreadfully boring and obnoxious. The last couple of days, Jason Lewis (my favorite host, hands down) has been talking about this and whether Governor Sanford is a hypocrite. If he is a hypocrite, I understand those who criticize him (although readers of the Huffingonton Post are almost certainly not going to be unbiased readers). We don't like hypocrisy. We want honesty and sincerity. "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

But, is Mark Sanford a hypocrite? Accusations of hypocrisy are thrown around way too often. Anytime someone with religious convictions violates the precepts of his faith, he is labeled a hypocrite. Is that fair? I think it is important to keep in mind the difference between someone who makes a mistake here and there and another who has a habit of committing those mistakes. Using my faith as an example, there is a considerable difference between a young man who has a beer during a weak moment at a high school party and another who drinks every weekend, even if they both attend a church that teaches us not to drink.

None of us is perfect. If perfection were required before one could preach about a subject, many pastors and religious instructors would be forced to teach the Eight or Nine Commandments rather than the Ten. (Of course, if Al Gore had to stop preaching about the environment until he lived in the forest with hemp clothing, I might change my views...) A person is not a hypocrite just because they have not lived according to the ideals that they preach to perfection.

In fact, it would be highly unfair to criticize those who have standards for hypocrisy. Imagine you had another governor who committed an affair, but believed it to be no big deal. Should Governor Sanford be criticized more for having standards and failing to fully live up to them than someone who does not fail to live up to standards that they don't have? Do we really believe that those of us who are imperfect (all of us) should avoid having positions on moral issues because if we later violate those principles, it is twice as bad for us?

At any rate, Governor Sanford is called a hypocrite because he was an outspoken critic of President Clinton during the impeachment. Of course, that requires that someone completely overlook the fact that the impeachment proceedings had nothing to do with sex. He was impeached not for sex, but for lying to a grand jury. For reference, one of the crimes that landed Martha Stewart in jail was making false statements to investigators. People may think that Republicans were only after Clinton because of sex, which may be true, but had Clinton confessed to his sexual activities, Congress would have had no basis for impeachment. But he lied, and that is a crime called perjury.

So, if Governor Sanford criticized Clinton for perjury (the Huffington Post article admits that the vast majority of his criticism was about lying, not his affairs), he is not a hypocrite for believing that extramarital affairs are wrong and still having one; he is weak, mortal, and yes, sinful. I do not mean to excuse his actions. They are morally wrong and I personally believe sexual impurity to be among the worst of sins. But, we are electing politicians, not preachers. I want a politician to be a moral person and would probably be bothered if I lived in South Carolina, but I also have to look at whether he is a good leader who supports my vision of the United States. President Obama seems like a moral, upstanding guy, but I do not support the vast majority of his domestic policies and views of this country. Thus, if I had to choose between a morally upright Obama and a morally flawed, yet repentant, Sanford, I would likely choose the latter.

Finally, I should note that Governor Sanford is almost certainly not a hypocrite because the word means something completely different than what most people think. It does not mean one who does not practice what he preaches. It means someone that is feigning a belief that they do not actually have. If Governor Sanford does not believe extramarital affairs to be wrong, but says that he does, that is hypocrisy. If, however, he believes that they are wrong, but fails to live up to the ideals that he has, that is not hypocrisy; that is human frailty.

Samuel Johnson wrote:

"Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practise; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself."

Again, if people find Governor Sanford's actions to be abominable and believe him to be unfit for office, so be it. We are each entitled to our own criteria by which we decide those for whom we would vote, but let us not cry "hypocrite."