Sex, Sin, and StreetlightsParsing hypocrisy, courtesy of Bob Allen.
By Steven E. LandsburgPosted Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2007, at 11:51 AM ET
God's latest gift to columnists and standup comedians is Florida legislator Bob Allen, arrested this summer in a public restroom for offering an undercover cop $20 and a blow job (yes, that's $20 and a blow job, not $20 for a blow job). This story has everything. First, there's Allen's risible defense—that as the only white guy in the men's room, he got scared and needed a way to fit in. Then there are the exquisite details, like Allen's Web page, which lists his sole recreational interest as "water sports." And the crowning glory: Allen's long history as a staunch defender of family values, including an attempt to outlaw masturbation in the presence of a consenting adult. Oh, the hypocrisy!
Or maybe not. Why, exactly, do we call Mr. Allen a hypocrite? Answer: because he wants to impose standards on others that he's not willing to impose on himself. But you could say the same thing about a lot of other politicians. Consider, for example, a U.S. Senator who seeks to raise income taxes on people in her own income bracket yet neglects to make voluntary overpayments to the government each April 15. Is she equally a hypocrite?
Hypocrisy is not an economic concept, so economic theory can't answer that question. But it can go a long way toward clarifying the issues and sorting out good analogies from bad ones.
Start with an example from Economics 101: Ten neighbors are willing to pay $20 each to install a streetlight that costs $100. But when you take up a voluntary collection, nobody contributes. Instead, each neighbor figures (perfectly rationally) that if the other neighbors want to build a streetlight, he might as well let them build a streetlight and ride along for free. The result? Darkness. On the other hand, if everyone is taxed $10, the streetlight gets built and everyone is happy. And if you take a vote, everyone votes for the tax.
Each neighbor's first choice is to have a light that other people pay for. Second choice is to be taxed, and last choice is to go without the light. That's a rational ordering of preference, from free-riding to paying equal shares to making do without a service. And while it's selfish, certainly, I don't know anyone who would label it hypocritical.
Now let's tweak the example: Instead of being asked to contribute $10 toward a streetlight, let's ask the same neighbors to contribute that amount toward feeding the homeless. And let's suppose once again that nobody contributes voluntarily, though everyone happily votes to be taxed.
That's nothing at all like the streetlight problem, and here's why: In most cases, one neighbor's contribution toward the streetlight does no good—the light gets built or it doesn't depending on what the neighbors do as a group. By contrast, one $10 contribution to the homeless does exactly $10 worth of good regardless of whether the other neighbors contribute or not.
It makes perfect sense to say "let the neighbors build the light." But it makes no sense at all to say "let the neighbors feed the homeless." If they do, there are still plenty more homeless to feed, and if they don't do their part, I can still do (or not do) mine.
It's perfectly rational—if a little ugly—to say: "I care enough about the homeless that I'd like to force my neighbors to feed them, but not enough that I'm willing to feed them myself." And it's therefore perfectly rational to say, "My first choice is that everyone but me feeds the homeless, my second choice is that everyone including me feeds the homeless, and my third choice is that nobody feeds the homeless." But now you edge a lot closer to what might reasonably be called hypocrisy. Because now you're imposing a standard that you're not willing to meet voluntarily—even though the free-rider problem does not apply.
What does all this mean for family-values crusaders who solicit sex in public restrooms? It depends, I suppose, on the nuances of their positions. Suppose you're Bob Allen: You believe that America is veering off course, and you expect that God will smite us unless 10,000,000 people all change their sinful ways. That's like a streetlight. Either 10,000,000 others will change their ways or they won't, and your own behavior is extremely unlikely to make a difference. Might as well go for the blow job. On the other hand, if you're Bob Allen and you believe that each individual sinner brings marginally more divine displeasure on all of us, that's like feeding the homeless. Your own behavior matters regardless of what everyone else does. In the first case, I might call you cold and calculating. In the second case, I might call you a hypocrite.
And ditto for the senator who calls for higher taxes but doesn't pay them voluntarily. If those taxes are meant to pay for streetlights—or for police protection, or public parks, or the military—then I'll give her a clear pass on the hypocrisy question. But if those taxes are meant to feed the poor, we're entitled to ask why she doesn't go ahead and pay them without waiting for the rest of us.
I think the issue here is that the author uses the wrong tool to evaluate the behavior. The better view is to look at this from the viewpoint of the congressman. In his mind, two things are true.
1) Behaviors like anonymous blow jobs are compelling or, using economics terms, have a high positive utility. Most people extrapolate their own preferences to others, so in his mind these are things that people will want to do. Basically, while most people have little desire for impersonal oral sex in public restrooms, that view would be counterintuitive to him.
2) These same behaviors are evil and sinful, or once again, have a high negative utility. As compelling and alluring as they might be, they are also to be avoided and are harmful to your soul. This isn't really hypocritical either. For example, no one would think a recovered alcoholic who viewed alcohol as evil was hypocritical.
Given those points, he was (internally) rational with his legislative agenda. Faced with a clearly attractive behavior, a clear way for him to make the overall attractiveness of the behavior (i.e. net utility) less attractive overall would be to amplify the penalties of that behavior and the likelihood of being caught -- for both himself and society overall. What the author ignores is that this agenda may well have been as much about creating a disincentive for the congressman himself.
It seems to me that an individual feeding the homeless, given that there is a very large supply of homeless people and the individual does not have unlimited resources, might make the individual feel better, and might make three or four homeless people feel better, but does nothing to ameliorate the problem. On the other hand, passing a program to tax everyone who is reasonable well off and using that money to fund a carefully and responsibly designed and administered program to attack the problems of homeless people, has a greater than zero chance of actually improving conditions for society as a whole (we all benefit from measurable decreases in the homeless problem). The comparison to the streetlight fails on a number of grounds.
Allen IS a hypocrite. Those politicians who follow the "family values" path without hypocrisy do so because they genuinely believe in a (very) strict moral code and demand that others adhere to this moral code. If Allen goes to bathrooms and tries to pay for blow jobs from other men in secret, while at the same time attempting to persecute those who do so openly, he is fulfilling every imaginable definition of hypocrisy. He is demanding that others follow a strict moral code while he is allowed to behave as he wishes. But perhaps, rather than hypocrisy, there is another explanation. Maybe, he does not actually believe in the strict moral code and yet he lies to his constituency in order to gain votes. Which of these is the greater sin: sex, lies, or hypocrisy?
A better economic analysis of Congressman Allen's behavior would consider the utility to him and to the larger society of sponsoring policies he doesn't believe in or personally support in order to to attract the support of the religious right. It's "cheap" for a politician to sponsor sexual restrictions (and any other sorts of ideological trash) as long as he believes they won't apply to his private life. In other words, what's the social and personal cost and benefit of pandering, not hypocrisy. In this case, he obviously underestimated the risk factors in his calculation, and it serves him right. I think the social cost of this kind of pandering can be very high, especially when it risks institutionalizing divisive and largely unenforceable policies, while encouraging and empowering intolerant minorities and rewarding unprincipled politicians.
The idea that Landburg was trying to convey [was] that Senator Allen's proposed legislation and contrary actions may not necessarily make him a hypocrite, based on socio-economic principles. An example of my own hypocrisy may illustrate this better: People speed down my street every day, putting my own and my neighbor's children at risk. Much discussion has led the community to decide that such behavior must stop. And yet, I find myself constantly driving 10 or more mph over the limit just a few blocks further down the street, where more children live, and think nothing of it. Why do I cry foul where my children are concerned, but not others?
The answer seems to be obvious: I'mselfish. Let that part of the neighborhood do as seems fit to them to protect their children, but I want a stop sign, speed bumps, etc. on my block, and I want someone else to pay most of the cost for those measures. In a similar way, Sen. Allen is being selfish in suggesting that the law he'd like to see implemented obviously wouldn't apply to him. Call it demagoguery if you want, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that he can justify his actions with himself--if only for that moment of weakness--while seeing that the greater good would probably be served by banning the same behavior on a large scale. The question is not, as one poster has suggested, what constitutes a bigger sin, but rather, how does this man justify his sin?
Is Allen a hypocrite? Absolutely. But not because of his proposed legislation. That he was willing to sponsor the legislation despite his own weakness suggests that he embraces his inner hypocrite and carries on trying to do right in the world. His actions don't diminish the bill's credibility, rather they bring awareness to it and provide fodder for us to debate the moral relevance of such laws. Whatever happens to Mr. Allen, he can honestly say that he "fought the good fight."
How the Bailout Auction Should Work How much should the Treasury pay for distressed assets that nobody else wants? A Bils-Kremer auction could set a fair price. Steven E. Landsburg | Oct. 13, 2008
The Eligible-Bachelor Paradox How economics and game theory explain the shortage of available, appealing men. Mark Gimein | April 9, 2008
God's latest gift to columnists and standup comedians is Florida legislator Bob Allen, arrested this summer in a public restroom for offering an undercover cop $20 and a blow job (yes, that's $20 and a blow job, not $20 for a blow job). This story has everything. First, there's Allen's risible defense—that as the only white guy in the men's room, he got scared and needed a way to fit in. Then there are the exquisite details, like Allen's Web page, which lists his sole recreational interest as "water sports." And the crowning glory: Allen's long history as a staunch defender of family values, including an attempt to outlaw masturbation in the presence of a consenting adult. Oh, the hypocrisy!
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
Adam Lambert's Refreshing Non-Apology on the CBS Early Show
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
Remarks from the Fray:
I think the issue here is that the author uses the wrong tool to evaluate the behavior. The better view is to look at this from the viewpoint of the congressman. In his mind, two things are true.
1) Behaviors like anonymous blow jobs are compelling or, using economics terms, have a high positive utility. Most people extrapolate their own preferences to others, so in his mind these are things that people will want to do. Basically, while most people have little desire for impersonal oral sex in public restrooms, that view would be counterintuitive to him.
2) These same behaviors are evil and sinful, or once again, have a high negative utility. As compelling and alluring as they might be, they are also to be avoided and are harmful to your soul. This isn't really hypocritical either. For example, no one would think a recovered alcoholic who viewed alcohol as evil was hypocritical.
Given those points, he was (internally) rational with his legislative agenda. Faced with a clearly attractive behavior, a clear way for him to make the overall attractiveness of the behavior (i.e. net utility) less attractive overall would be to amplify the penalties of that behavior and the likelihood of being caught -- for both himself and society overall. What the author ignores is that this agenda may well have been as much about creating a disincentive for the congressman himself.
--tempanon
(To reply, click here.)
It seems to me that an individual feeding the homeless, given that there is a very large supply of homeless people and the individual does not have unlimited resources, might make the individual feel better, and might make three or four homeless people feel better, but does nothing to ameliorate the problem. On the other hand, passing a program to tax everyone who is reasonable well off and using that money to fund a carefully and responsibly designed and administered program to attack the problems of homeless people, has a greater than zero chance of actually improving conditions for society as a whole (we all benefit from measurable decreases in the homeless problem). The comparison to the streetlight fails on a number of grounds.
--ellamenta
(To reply, click here.)
Allen IS a hypocrite. Those politicians who follow the "family values" path without hypocrisy do so because they genuinely believe in a (very) strict moral code and demand that others adhere to this moral code. If Allen goes to bathrooms and tries to pay for blow jobs from other men in secret, while at the same time attempting to persecute those who do so openly, he is fulfilling every imaginable definition of hypocrisy. He is demanding that others follow a strict moral code while he is allowed to behave as he wishes. But perhaps, rather than hypocrisy, there is another explanation. Maybe, he does not actually believe in the strict moral code and yet he lies to his constituency in order to gain votes. Which of these is the greater sin: sex, lies, or hypocrisy?
--ianm82
(To reply, click here.)
A better economic analysis of Congressman Allen's behavior would consider the utility to him and to the larger society of sponsoring policies he doesn't believe in or personally support in order to to attract the support of the religious right. It's "cheap" for a politician to sponsor sexual restrictions (and any other sorts of ideological trash) as long as he believes they won't apply to his private life. In other words, what's the social and personal cost and benefit of pandering, not hypocrisy. In this case, he obviously underestimated the risk factors in his calculation, and it serves him right. I think the social cost of this kind of pandering can be very high, especially when it risks institutionalizing divisive and largely unenforceable policies, while encouraging and empowering intolerant minorities and rewarding unprincipled politicians.
--amcress
(To reply, click here.)
The idea that Landburg was trying to convey [was] that Senator Allen's proposed legislation and contrary actions may not necessarily make him a hypocrite, based on socio-economic principles. An example of my own hypocrisy may illustrate this better: People speed down my street every day, putting my own and my neighbor's children at risk. Much discussion has led the community to decide that such behavior must stop. And yet, I find myself constantly driving 10 or more mph over the limit just a few blocks further down the street, where more children live, and think nothing of it. Why do I cry foul where my children are concerned, but not others?
The answer seems to be obvious: I'm selfish. Let that part of the neighborhood do as seems fit to them to protect their children, but I want a stop sign, speed bumps, etc. on my block, and I want someone else to pay most of the cost for those measures. In a similar way, Sen. Allen is being selfish in suggesting that the law he'd like to see implemented obviously wouldn't apply to him. Call it demagoguery if you want, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that he can justify his actions with himself--if only for that moment of weakness--while seeing that the greater good would probably be served by banning the same behavior on a large scale. The question is not, as one poster has suggested, what constitutes a bigger sin, but rather, how does this man justify his sin?
Is Allen a hypocrite? Absolutely. But not because of his proposed legislation. That he was willing to sponsor the legislation despite his own weakness suggests that he embraces his inner hypocrite and carries on trying to do right in the world. His actions don't diminish the bill's credibility, rather they bring awareness to it and provide fodder for us to debate the moral relevance of such laws. Whatever happens to Mr. Allen, he can honestly say that he "fought the good fight."
--jeditoby
(To reply, click here.)
(8/19)