Randall Tobias: Another Hypocrite Bites the Dust

The BBQ Pit
21

Wait – what credibility of US aid policies? Our policy on abstinence is an atrocity no matter who is implementing it. Certainly you can’t be implying that if, say, the pure-as-the-driven-snow Pope was in charge of USAID that our international family planning policies would have more credibility. Ha! I say, and Double Ha!

Let’s not get carried away with pretending that the idea that getting rid of Tobias will make a difference in the policy – we all know damn well who is responsible in the first place: that is the President. The policy predates Tobias, and will undoubtedly continue until at least 1/20/09, regardless of who heads USAID. So, once again, the substance here is, an important Republican got “massages!!”

Finally, I know I’m in the minority here, but personally I’m tired of hypocracy being portrayed as a substantive issue in and of itself. This guy being exposed as a probable hypocrite does zero to change the substance of US policies. It has removed from public office someone who shouldn’t have been there, not because he is a hypocrite, but because he was seeing call girls, probably in violation of the law – which, for me, is indeed a real issue. But hypocracy in and of itself, without violation of ethics rules, laws or whathaveyou, isn’t really an important thing to me. My mother smoked and told me that smoking was unhealthy. I have a friend who is lazy as all hell but believes that Americans should exercise more. Hypocrites, yes. But lack of hypocracy doesn’t confer any validation on bad ideas: the President may be 100% celebate himself, and for all I care could have been 100% abstinent before marriage, but that doesn’t mean that his family planning policy is any good.

The way I see it, charges of hypocracy are nothing more to me than a very catchy form of ad hominem masquerading as a “substantive issue.” If you feel so strongly about hypocracy, that’s fine. Whatever.

22

It’s hypocrisy, dammit.

23

Yeah! That too!

24

I think the substance is: “Another of these dudes is a chucklehead. Bush appoints chuckleheads. He was chosen to fit the religious convictions of a bunch of chuckleheads. Abandon this way of thinking, voter, or it’ll be chuckleheads, not turtles, all the way down.”

25

Well, to be fair to ABC, there are so many departments involved with different types of foreign aid and related medical and dietary issues that it is possible that ABC actually has reported on them, but could not justify an ongoing series or an in-depth look. On the other hand, this is a current story with information that fell into ABC’s lap, at which point Tobias very publicly resigned before any actual investigation could occur. Abrupt resignations are news in any context while ongoing policies, interwoven with multiple departments with the support of the president, himself, are pretty hard to continue or keep in the headlines when the audience is going to yawn and flip the channel, anyway.

I would like to see a more responsible news media promoting more thorough investigations, but in this capitalist society, revenue (or lack) has a direct bearing on what stories will appear.

26

I agree. I don’t care that an important advocate of abstinence before marriage and opponent of prostitution is being busted for seeing prostitutes. Sure, it’s hypocrisy, but it doesn’t affect me in any way. The important thing is that US foreign aid is tied to the recipients teaching abstinence-only programs, and that’s wrong and deserves pitting. But as you say, Tobias isn’t responsible for that, he didn’t set the policy. But his seeing prostitutes? I just don’t really care, even though it points to moral failings (hypocrisy) in him.

27

Indeed. :stuck_out_tongue:

28

I think that’s the point, though. Reasonable people don’t fret too much about what goes on in other people’s bedrooms, so long as it doesn’t concern them in any way.

The current U.S. administration feels it has a mandate to implement a moralist ideology, regardless of its practical effects. They are are acting as though they can make an entire nation (and other nations) into something that fits their ideals, and the bar they have set is too high for themselves never mind people who don’t share their ideals or aspirations.

These policies do effect us, because they inevitably cause real economic harm to our largest trading partner, which can’t be good for us.

When someone who personally, from a moral position, advocates abstinence over prophylactic measures and then gets caught with his pants down, everybody should point and hoot – not because we are indignant that a presumably sexual being should actually have sex, but because it underlines the futility of a dangerous policy that is having negative effects worldwide, despite its properly belonging to some centuries past.

To put it another way, these fucking clowns ought to be shouted down.

29

No, you’re wrong, Ravenman. Let me illustrate the point this way. Your mother smoked but told you not to. She did something she knew she shouldn’t be doing but was upfront about that.

Tobias advocates policies that rely for their efficacy on people not fucking around. His opponents no doubt say that people are going to fuck around, so we’re better off recognising reality and giving them condoms and his response is that no, it is a viable health policy to just tell people to abstain.

But actually, even he can’t abstain. He is living proof that his own policy is crap, but won’t admit it.

To make the situation analogous to your mother and smoking we would have to change the facts a lot. Say if your father smoked, and you and your mother had just given up. You complain that having your father’s cigarettes and smoke around was giving you cravings and providing you with easy access to materials and wanted him to quit smoking at home. And your mother says: “no, it’s no problem, just have some willpower”. But actually when your back’s turned, your mother keeps getting tempted to have one of your father’s cigarettes.

30

What’s the betting that Tobias used a condom because he didn’t want to risk AIDs?

31

He probably didn’t have the option, its SOP that tricks wear rubbers.

32

I was just ah, doing research, yeah that’s what it was research into, ya know the stuff I was supposed to be doing, yeah, that’s it research.

33

Hey, it worked for Pete Townsend.

34

Change the facts any way you like. Make my mother into a crack addict (no offense will be taken in this fictional scenario! ;)), an open smoker, a covert smoker, whatever the hell you want, her assertion that smoking is bad is true REGARDLESS of whether she smokes cigarettes, pot, or crack, in open or in private, whether she blows the smoke in my face or not. One could say that hypocracy may not make her a nice person, but that does not mean that her views on smoking are any more or less legitimate.

Similarly, whether the US’s current family planning policy is administered by closet trisexuals or by the most chaste of nuns, it is still a bad policy. The only difference is that if it is administered by the latter, some who oppose the policy will simply have an easier time thinking that ad hominem attacks actually amount to a substantive discussion on an important issue. And again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the madams motives, which was the initial point of my first post about this.

By the way, am I the only person who, when discussing this issue, can’t help but think about Tobias Fünke from Arrested Development answering the door in his condo, stripping down to nothing but his jeans shorts, hopping on a massage table, and telling his caller to get started? Anyone? Anyone?

35

Uh, no. Another, and important, difference will be that in the latter case, many victims of the policy will perceive the US as having deliberately played them for suckers by foisting on them an anti-prostitution regimen that even the American architects of the policy didn’t really believe in.

I think you’re underestimating or ignoring the PR damage that can be done by blatant hypocrisy in a high-profile public figure. Remember, Tobias was to a large extent the public face of the American PEPFAR anti-AIDS program in Africa, and traveled to Africa frequently to meet with medical workers and government leaders there. The loss of Tobias’s personal credibility is to some extent a loss for American credibility in general, which is not good for the effectiveness of American anti-AIDS efforts in Africa.

Yes, the effects of Tobias’s individual hypocrisy are minor compared to the effects of the bad policies he promoted. But the point here is that hypocrisy on the part of public figures concerning a bad policy makes the effects of the bad policy worse.

36

Self-serving? Isn’t that what you would expect from every defendant in a criminal case? Or is she a bad person for not throwing herself on the mercy of the court?

37

Funny you mention that. Of the news coverage I’ve seen, one of the most interesting stories about whether his notoriety will have any effect on policy is this from the Boston Globe, in which some critics of the Administration say that they are worried that his departure will but US development aid even further on the back burner. The story basically says that his departure – not the criticism of him – is the major issue.

Personally, I think we will all forget about this in a month, but for my own personal curiousity, I’ll be asking my friends in the development community if they’re seeing any fallout.

38

Actually, I started a thread for dealing with just these types of cock ups not too long ago.

Ravenman, you’re forgetting that sometimes it’s not what a criminal is known for that get’s them taken down. Al Capone didn’t get jailed for being a bootlegger or pimp, they nailed him on tax evasion. While Tobias never should have been the head of USAID to begin with, I’m not going to bitch that he was taken out because he got caught with his britches down. The more of these dipshits who are brought down, the better, and if the only way the press is willing to expose them is if they’re caught with hookers, then all I have to say is, “God bless the working girls of the world!”

39

Nice try putting words in my mouth. Have you stopped beating your wife?

By “self serving” I meant that her actions seem to be one of someone trying to inflict harm on others, not someone earnestly preparing for her defense. I have no problem with someone being entirely self-interested as a means of defending themselves in court. The only courtroom the madam seems interested in is the court of public opinion, in which she wants to extract some sort of embarassment and revenge on her clients. Pardon me if I don’t find that very principled or justified.

And Tuckerfan, I can’t say I’m so naive as to think that something good is going to come out of him leaving. Other than a smug satisfaction that some may feel at the personal destruction (although perhaps deserved) of those who see things differently.

40

There are only two real possible explanations for the Madam’s behavior:

1.She is actually being honest and is using a news agency to find her clients and elicit the innocent truth, or

  1. She is trying to suborn perjury out of her clients.

It is interesting that every single one of you believes option 2 is the truth.

Well, ok, me too. :slight_smile:

I think we should congratulate ourselves. This is the first episode of true consensus I have witnessed on these boards!

I must admit, also, a real admiration for her tactics. It’s an interesting question as to whether it’s ethical, and it’s certainly not illegal.

First of all, she is having ABC do what the cops SHOULD be doing, contacting clients to determine what was going on. She is merely saying, “Talk to my clients. They will tell you what happened, and didn’t happen.” I have to say, that is not an unreasonable position to take.

Second, she is immunizing herself from possible perjury charges at trial, I think. I would bet that she herself will not testify, if this ever gets to trial. Instead, she hopes to produce a long line of “respectable” DC powerbrokers to stand up and proclaim nothing untoward ever happened, against a short list of relative nobody’s that the prosecution will have. That will strengthen another defense arguement, that whatever sex DID take place was at the individual iniative of “rogue” escorts.

She is putting all the difficult moral choices in the hands of her clients, with no risk at all to herself, and giving them a very powerful motive to lie and shield her. And the more “morally upright” and powerful their reputation is, the more motive to lie they have.

It is absolutely brilliant, and my WAG is this will never get to trial. Before it ever gets to a court room, there will be about a thousand well known Washingtonians, standing up ON VIDEOTAPE, claimng the activities were completely legit. Any hypocrites that resign their posts are actually a bonus for for us, the American public.

And really, I can’t see how this is her doing. The cops had these records, and I must admit I have more trust in ABC to research the client list and thoroughly expose the truth (or many versions of it) than I do a politically connected prosecutor.

I love this!