On capitol carnality.

MARK FOLEY is a grotesque guy as far as I'm concerned. The disgraced former congressman indisputably hit on teenagers he met as congressional pages. It was an outrageous breach of trust. And investigations are underway to see what else he did. Given the political climate, it should surprise no one if these investigations take on the odor of a witch-hunt or moral panic. It should also surprise no one that the Democrats are seizing on an October surprise with considerable glee.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Foley's sudden resignation was announced on a Friday. By that Monday Democrats were shouting "cover-up" and, in races across the country, denouncing their GOP opponents for taking money from Foley, as if taking such contributions in good faith and complete ignorance were, in and of itself, evidence of softness on congressional pederasty.

Forgive me if I'm incapable of taking Democratic outrage too seriously. This was, after all, the party that made defending Bill Clinton's baron-and-the-milkmaid act with an intern into its signature issue. Before that, there was Democratic congressman Gerry Studds (a name fit for gay porn if ever there was one), who, it was revealed in 1983, had an affair with a 17-year-old page. Mr. Studds was censured by the Congress for his behavior, but he wore the condemnation as a badge of honor, literally turning his back on his putatively homophobic colleagues as they read the censure. He immediately gave a press conference at which he proclaimed he did nothing wrong. Studds ran for reelection, and his solidly Democratic district reelected him five more times.

That same year a Republican, Dan Crane of Illinois, was rebuked for his affair with a 17-year-old female page. Crane openly wept during an abject apology and begged for forgiveness. He ran for reelection and the voters threw him out of office.

There is a pattern here. Just as President Clinton's impeachment proceedings were underway, his defenders leaked the news that the speaker-to-be, Bob Livingston, had had an affair. He resigned almost immediately, a move to which many Democrats objected because such personal accountability suggested that maybe Clinton should resign too. Barney Frank, whose gay-hooker-lover-turned-personal-aide ran a prostitution ring out of his apartment, remains in many respects the conscience of the Democratic caucus in the House while Republican Bob Packwood (what is it with these porn names?) harassed female staffers and was driven from office as a result.

Of course, there are extenuating circumstances in all of these examples, but there is a lesson here nonetheless. No conservative who understands what conservatism is would argue that human failings aren't well distributed across the political and ideological landscape. The question is how we as individuals and institutions respond to them. The liberal-Democratic position seems to be that personal sins are never relevant, except for the sin of hypocrisy. So Republicans who stand by a moral standard can be condemned for not living up to it, while liberals who pooh-pooh such standards never can be. As Howard Dean explained not long ago, "Everybody has ethical shortcomings. We ought not to lecture each other about our ethical shortcomings.... I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy." What a convenient principle.