The Belgravia Dispatch: Frum's Greatest Hits

November 04, 2006

Frum's Greatest Hits

Two beauts:

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. 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 always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything."

Oh my, rather rich fare, wouldn't you say? And the comment "(a)nd that is the root of, maybe, everything" is just gut-splitting in its self-importance, sophomoric inanity, and divorce from reality. We need serious people in Washington again, rather desperately, I'd think.

Posted by Gregory at November 4, 2006 03:47 PM

Comments

Great catch Greg.... but at least we can say that Frum is consistent... he's hypocritical about hypocrisy itself.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at November 4, 2006 05:16 PM | Permalink to this comment

It's interesting that the teetotaling gay man (or woman) in a long-time committed relationship appears nowhere on the Frum spectrum of gay existence.

Posted by: Barry E. at November 4, 2006 05:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

So if you have two concentration camp guards-#1 a sadist who enjoys it and #2 who's just following orders and telling his family to vote against Hitler in the next election.

I think we just have two murderous scumbags. At least #1 is not a hypocrite, though Frum seems to think #2 deserves praise.

Conclusion: Frum is a fool.

Posted by: Martin at November 4, 2006 05:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

This, John Holbo's long long takedown on Frum's "Dead Right," is still one of my favorite things the blogosphere has ever produced.

Bush may be dumb, but he's not as dumb as Frum. Both are credits to Yale University.

Posted by: Delicious Pundit at November 4, 2006 06:58 PM | Permalink to this comment

i've deleted a comment above that appeared to include unsubstantiated allegations of a personal nature about frum. i'm obviously not a huge fan of some of these individuals, but let's try to keep any castigations and such to matters related to policy differences and/or a general failure to accept responsibility--rather than delve too deeply into people's (alleged) personal laundry. thx,gd

Posted by: greg djerejian at November 4, 2006 09:05 PM | Permalink to this comment

Frum's semi famous personal peccadillos are relevant but not vital to the discussion. What I don't get is where Bush is supposed to have jumped the track of his words and neglected the deeds?

As best I can tell Bush didn't 'win' in Iraq. Is that an unfair summary of Frum's thoughts? At any rate I think the Haggard evidence pretty much proves the words control deeds theory is all wet. As if anyone didn't know that.

As Ralph Waldo Emerson said many many years ago: The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.

Posted by: rapier at November 4, 2006 10:52 PM | Permalink to this comment

I find David Frum to be practicing a mantra of "Do As I Type Not As I Do."

What else can one expect from a "team player" whose blatant self-promotion (I wrote "Axis of Evil") resulted in the White House kicking Mr. Frum off the team?

Posted by: Mark Raven at November 5, 2006 02:30 AM | Permalink to this comment

I'm not going to get into the religion thing, except to point out that the duty of leaders of the church to avoid doing things likely to bring the faith into disrepute is spelled out very clearly in Paul's Epistles. I don't know that Paul made any direct references to male prostitutes or crystal meth. But we can use our imaginations, can't we?

But let's talk about speechwriters for a minute. Henry Kissinger observed a quarter-century ago that speechwriters for politicians and especially Presidents are liable to be frustrated principals, seeking to use their influence over what their employers say to impose something of their own views on what their employers (or their employers' administrations in the case of Presidential speechwriters) do. As a practical matter there are multiple obstacles to their being able to do so -- the politicians' own views, their reluctance to ignite public controversies, the resistance of other staff to one of their number gaining influence over what their bosses say or do. Presidential speeches, traditionally, are cleared beforehand with the relevant departments; even in the Bush administration the clearance of some statements by State and CIA has absorbed much time.

In short the dream of many speechwriters -- and aspiring speechwriters, a group I sometimes think includes half the political blogosphere -- to emerge as a Svengali figure, projecting their wisdom and moral purpose onto the public through their immediate employer is doomed to frustration most of the time. David Frum is hardly the first speechwriter for a politician to have fooled himself on this point. But in the modern celebrity culture someone like him can gain a considerable amount of visibility by trading on his past associations. Or, in this case, on his disillusionment. In an earlier time going public with one's discontent about a former boss would have been a good way to keep from being hired by other politicians. That seems not to be what David Frum is after now, and I suppose there is more money and less frustration to be found in joining the punditocracy than in seeking further government work, let alone is running for office oneself.

Posted by: Zathras at November 5, 2006 03:40 AM | Permalink to this comment

I don't find the quote #1 out of Frum all that offensive. I actually tend to agree with it, though sort of think this is the sort of "great insight" one finds in a college dorm room bull sesson.

But then, in the same post, he says what he really had in mind.

If a religious leader has a personal inclination toward homosexuality - and nonetheless can look past his own inclination to defend the institution of marriage and to affirm its benefits for the raising of children - why should he likewise not be honored for his intellectual firmness and moral integrity?

Homosexuals -- the enemy of marriage. A threat to the moral fiber of the nation!

Hmph! I don't think I will be defending Mr Frum today...

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at November 6, 2006 01:00 PM | Permalink to this comment

i'm sorry, is frum arguing that instead of letting gay people get married so they can have normal, committed families, that it's more moral and Christian for them to commit adultery with gay prostitutes, lie to their kids about who they are what they're doing, and induce straight women into loveless, sexless marriages?

on the other hand, you have to give the frumster props for describing their marriage as, if not full of intercourse, at least "intellectually firm."

Posted by: aviatrix at November 6, 2006 04:54 PM | Permalink to this comment

I read that Dobson is condeming the media. I gather that means we should learn, from Dobson's exalted teaching post, that it is worse to expose an adulterer, than to commit adultery. So the Christian path is to protect and conceal adultery and deception by church leaders. I guess that fits with the general moral tone of American Protestantism -- money excuses all sin...

Posted by: john doe at November 7, 2006 07:14 PM | Permalink to this comment