September 5, 2003
MICHAEL KINSLEY--CULTURE WARRIOR:
Zeitgeist Surfing: In 1977 Arnold Schwarzenegger thought of himself as a swinger. In 2003 he thinks of himself as governor. (Michael Kinsley, September 4, 2003, Slate)
True, you can't nail Arnold on hypocrisy. He told this story on himself 26 years ago and hasn't troubled to deny it since it re-emerged. In fact, if there is any dishonesty here, it may be in the anecdote itself. Did this parody of a testosterone fantasy really happen? (Kaus quotes Mr. Gold himself saying that Gold's gym had no women members back then.) But if it did happen, exactly as Arnold described it in 1977, it's pretty disgusting. It's disgusting even if it was consensual all around. It's disgusting even though Arnold wasn't married at the time. It's disgusting even if this amounts to applying the standards of the 21st century to events of the mid-1970s. Schwarzenegger isn't running for governor of California in 1975.In terms of his fitness for elected office, the fact that Schwarzenegger bragged about this episode in a published interview makes the question of whether it really happened almost irrelevant. In 1977, at least, he wished to have people believe that he shared and was proud of an attitude toward women that is not acceptable in a politician.
We warmly welcome Mr. Kinsley to the ranks of the Puritans, though we seem to recall that he had a somewhat different view when it came to Bill Clinton sexually assaulting women. His "disgusting" standard, which certainly should apply to group sex, will surely likewise apply to anal sex and effectively call into question the " fitness for elected office" of gay men. We're as surprised as anybody that Mr. Kinsley is this socially conservative, but there's always room on the Right. Posted by orrinj at September 5, 2003 12:17 AM
Mr. Kinsley falls into a familiar trap: ascribing to others feelings they do not have.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 5, 2003 6:49 AMAs another Internet pundit noted, Bill Clinton is the gift that keeps on giving for Republican politicos. No attack on a Repub's sex life by a Dem commentator can get traction now. The reply "Clinton didn't bother you" is an immediate and complete squelch.
Sure, it's too easy and almost unfair. But you can't expect the Orrin Judds of the world to decline to use this ultimate weapon when the Michael Kinsleys of the world get huffy about a GOPer's sex life.
Posted by: Casey Abell at September 5, 2003 8:57 AMCasey:
A sex life that the author himself suggests was just made up to impress people, but then suggests pretending is itself a disqualifier.
Posted by: oj at September 5, 2003 8:59 AM>>A sex life that the author himself suggests was just made up to impress people, but then suggests pretending is itself a disqualifier.
Hm, I think I get your drift here. But after Clinton a Repub politico will have to get caught in bed with a live boy AND a dead girl before criticism of his sex life will get traction.
Posted by: Casey Abell at September 5, 2003 9:23 AMCasey:
The argument about the whole Clinton sex thing was that what was a consensual adult contact shouldn't be fodder for the media or political foes. It is more than a little hypocritical for Kinsley to pile on Arnold when the whole mantra of Clinton's second term was "It's not about anything but the sex and its time people move on."
How come one standard is applied to Clinton and another to Arnold? And if you don't like that the standards for everyone have been lowered because of Clinton, that should have been a consideration at the time of impeachment. It was on the GOP side that people were arguing that Clinton's extracuricular activities were doing damage to the whole of society and our standards, not on the Dem side. The whole GOP was protrayed as a bunch of puritanical tyrants and prudish old church ladies.
And holding the Kinsley's of the world to their own standards (or rather, lack of them) is delightful, to be sure, but hardly the "ultimate weapon."
>>And holding the Kinsley's of the world to their own standards (or rather, lack of them) is delightful, to be sure, but hardly the "ultimate weapon."
Sorry, but in practical political terms, it is exactly the ultimate weapon. That's why the hoohah about Ah-nold's sex life went nowhere. The people who were most eager to make hay about it were exactly the people who excused Clinton. Hypocrisy is a hard sell to the public.
Sure, Dem pundits can reply that Repubs got upset over Clinton but not over Ah-nold. But by then the game has already been lost. The Dems are acknowledging that Everybody Does It by even mentioning Clinton. So the political effect is nil for the uncommitted voter.
Really, it's going to take, oh I don't know, revelations of incest with his grandmother before sex allegations against Ah-nold get any traction at all. Thank you, Slickster.
Posted by: Casey Abell at September 5, 2003 9:50 AMButtercup:
What did Nixon do that the Democrats hadn't done first? We are held to a different standard.
Posted by: oj at September 5, 2003 10:01 AMre: "dead girl and live boy"--
Brings to mind this statement, which I believe has been attributed to Lyndon Johnson (or one of his ilk) as the ultimate campaign statement-- "my opponent sodomizes dead donkeys, and I'd like to see him deny it." (I've also heard this attributed to W.C.Fields, as part of his 1936 run for President.)
As for Kinsey, his problem is that he's living in a selective past, where only Republican transgressions are forever a stain, but where Democrats can swim away from manslaughter or excuse their membership in racial suppremacist groups as "youthful indiscretions."
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 5, 2003 1:21 PMI'm still waiting for someone to ask Herself what it is like being married to an accused rapist.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 5, 2003 9:37 PM