"But I Didn't Inhale", Redux Courtesy of Ted Haggard

Rev. Ted Haggard went to a gay prostitute for a "massage", and he bought chrystal meth "but he threw it away". Haggard, pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, sounds a lot like Bill Clinton but his parishoners are sticking with him so far. I guess that just getting a massage from a gay prostitute and simply buying chrystal meth doesn't cross the line for these conservative Christians. But this story is not over yet.

Ted Haggard will not be arrested or face a trial in court. Rather, he will be subject to an internal investigation by his church, and he will get a lot of unwelcome scrutiny from the press. The latter will likely fill out the details of the life lived by Ted Haggard, and judgment will be rendered by the public and his congregation. What should their rules be for judging powerful people like Haggard?

First, they must hold powerful people to a high standard of conduct. Like us, powerful people are fallible. CEO's can be honest or steal, police can be squeeky clean or take bribes, and presidents can go to war for the right or the wrong reasons. The difference between the bad choices made by powerful people and average people is often in the scope of the impact.

Ken Lay wrecked the lives of thousands when he trashed Enron; crooked cops facilitate the crimes of those they take bribes from; and, Lyndon Johnson divided a nation and spent its youth for nothing in Vietnam. These examples show that oversight of powerful people is especially important because their bad choices tend to have powerful conseqences. And when oversight fails to identify or deter these bad choices prior to the damage being done, the punishment of powerful people should be stiff.

Ted Haggard held others to a strict standard of morality when he spoke from the pulpit. If he is guilty only of the behavior he has already admitted, his role in the pulpit and the administration of that church should be over. Harsh punishment? Not. Contrition, to be realistic, must have self-imposed penalties - "sackcloth and ashes", for example. If Haggard does not volunteer for exile, he should be exiled by his flock to a new occupation and a considerably reduced lifestyle. He must live by his own rules if they are to have any meaning for his followers.

Is there a parallel between Haggard and Clinton? Perhaps in terms of the level of embarassment they caused their constituencies the cases are similar. But on another level, the cases are very different. Clinton was elected president by people who knew he boasted of having a carpet in the back of his pickup truck. People were aware of Jennifer Flowers. Clinton never claimed to be pure. Haggard, on the other hand, set himself up as an example for all. That makes his claim of "I bought the meth but threw it away" ring rather hollow. He crossed his own line, and that makes him subject to his own rules. More to come on this one, for sure.