Skip to content

On the Hypocrisy of the Evangelical Right Toward Newt Gingrich (Miniblog #97)

by Carson T. Clark on January 23, 2012

1.Merriam-Webster defines hypocrisy as, “A feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion.”

I was a regular ol’ Alex P. Keaton–a right-wing, adolescent political junkie. Parroting the stances of many of the adults around me, I defended Newt and the GOP, condemned the Democrats, and decried the media’s liberal bias. During the Monica Lewinky scandal I denounced president Clinton in the most passionate terms possible, saying that a man who was that immoral has no business being president. What’s disconcerting is that I see many of these same persons now blithely defending Newt in my facebook newsfeed, agreeing with him that it’s “despicable” that he should have to answer questions about his own infidelity at the very same time and that these issues have nothing to do with one’s ability to run the country. It’s the essence of hypocrisy. Look, my eyes are not selectively blind. I see that the epidemic of hypocrisy across the political spectrum in this election year. Yet what I will say is this: As one who was then and remains an evangelical Christian, my belief is that we who made this moral argument should now be held to the higher standard we invoked.22.Lest some of these folks try to use the avoidance tactic by saying, “No, my real concern was that the president of the United States lied under oath,” that’s just a bunch of bologna. I remember having the conversations and hearing the sermons. The oath issue actually was a pretty solid legal argument, but they definitively, intentionally, and explicitly placed the emphasis on the prerequisite moral and spiritual character of our leader. Also, let me be clear that I’m not simply Newt-bashing. As one aspiring to the priesthood, I’m more than open to grace and forgiveness. Imagine if Newt had answered John King’s question by saying,

As a Christian I humbly confess my wickedness. I sinned against my former wife and against God, and have tried to turn from the error of my ways. Was I a hypocrite? Yes. Did I decry President Clinton’s actions at the very same time that I committed the same reprehensible acts? Yes. Do I have questions about this story’s timing and the appropriateness of that discussion at this debate? Yes. But I cannot take back what I’ve done. All I can do is say I’m sorry, I’ve repented, and I ask for your forgiveness and a chance to change.

What a powerful testimony that would’ve been! Unfortunately, what he did instead was bust out a red herring from his bully pulpit because humility rarely scores you political points. As a professing devout Catholic now, he should know better. I don’t know what’s more tragic, the fact that the devout Mormon is the man of integrity in this race or that Newt’s refusal to humbly die to self galvanized South Carolina’s evangelicals to vote for him.33.Neither speaks well for the condition of American Christianity.

* If you liked this post, I’d encourage you to Share it to help put the other side of this story in people’s newsfeeds.

  • http://twitter.com/tonydahlman Tony Dahlman

    I have nothing to dispute on your overall point on hypocrisy, but I wonder if you are building this up to more than it really is. Newt Gingrich won South Carolina yes, but that is the only real success he has had in the GOP primary race. It is easy to point to his “evangelical” turnout, but I think that is discounting the fact a former House Rep from Georgia beat a guy from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania in the first contest in the deep South. I don’t have access to your Facebook newsfeed so I don’t know if the religious right zealotry for Gingrich is as big as you say it is, but my impression over the past few weeks is that the evangelical vote has been leaning towards Santorum and is hesitant about Gingrich because of the issues in his past.

    I was fourteen years old when Clinton was impeached. I honestly remember focusing on the “lying under oath” part at the time, but I can probably concede that either my memory is bad or the “moral and spiritual character” was a reason many gave for support of impeachment. Either way I hope I don’t have to spend too much time defending the political opinions of a version of me who couldn’t even legally drive yet.

  • Ian Sansot

    An excellent post, Carson. My response here is not intellectual analysis, but a humble explanation of where I’m at on the issue.

    I was about 12 when the Clinton scandal happened. I remember decrying him as well. I remember making the ‘lying under oath’ argument. I don’t think I was thinking for myself at that point anyway. Jump to present day, I haven’t tried to avoid it by saying it was all about the lie under oath (although, you better believe I thought it!) for the very reason you mentioned it: it’s an avoidance tactic. The issue I had (as much as a dumb 12 year-old can have an issue) was the moral issue. My guess is that was pretty standard.

    I’ve striven for a consistent viewpoint. When the allegations against my man Herman Cain started coming out, I wanted to defend him. But then I too remembered the Clinton scandal. I remembered my impassioned cry for impeachment. It’s easy to take the moral high ground when the perp is in the other party.

    I guess where I’m at now is admitting the moral fault of the candidate/politician. Don’t deny it. Let it be a factor in your opinions of him. Decide how much weight that factor in your assessment. See if other factors outweigh that one. And finally, consistently give the same weight to that factor to all political parties. Not gonna lie, I like a lot of Newt’s politics. I absolutely love his attitude toward the Supreme Court. That, for me, outweighs his past moral turpitude. And finally, in the future, I have to be careful how I respond to similar incidents in the future regarding Democrats. Like remembering the Clinton scandal this go-round, I want to remember the allegations against Cain and Gingrich’s adultery. Hopefully that will temper my response.

  • http://profiles.google.com/wkennethleonard Ken Leonard

    Bear in mind that we were talking about Clinton’s adultery long before Lewinsky. Gennifer Flowers had nothing to do with perjury.

%d bloggers like this: