Tiger Woods
Tiger Woods is not just the best golfer alive, nor just the best golfer who ever lived. He's a massively public person who set out to be precisely that. Quite strategically, he shaped his athletic prowess and compelling personal story into an identity in separable from myth. Accordingly, the behavior he unsuccessfully tried to keep hidden raises familiar "when heroes fall from grace" themes. The big question lingers: Why did Tiger do what he did? Not that he enjoyed crazy sex; heavens no. Tiger wanted to stop but had to keep setting up clandestine romps because he was addicted. So says columnist Jon Carroll:
Tiger ... did some of the acceptable things: He got married and had kids. But he kept his secret life going, and he chose some pretty skanky partners. He did not seem to be able to stop even when he wanted to. That's a pretty good working definition of addiction.
Did not seem to be able to stop. This "working definition of addiction" covers practically any choice made by anyone under any circumstance. (Fantastic, if you're looking for an excuse.) But like lots of "pretty good" theories, Carroll's depends on ignoring facts that don't fit. Key facts like: Tiger stopped when he got caught. (Is it a stupendous stretch to suggest a causal connection?) As for working theories, here's one that makes a little real-world sense to yours truly: Tiger needed a narrative that would generate sympathy while protecting his standing with commercial sponsors. In that regard, "I'm sorry, I'm sick, I'm getting treatment" plays a whole lot better than "I'm rich, I'm powerful, I'm entitled."
Jon Carroll's columns make no attempt to hide his animosity toward Republicans, so no surprise that he neglected to apply his pet theory when Republican Senator John Ensign needed an apologist with a handy fig leaf. (Not that Ensign deserved one.) Here's the distinction that drives the left: When a politically correct icon like Tiger Woods cheats on his wife, it's because some force beyond himself compelled him. When a conservative/Republican does the deed, he's bad, wrong, immoral.
Recall: Liberals welcomed Richard Nixon's perjury as evidence that he deserved to be impeached. Twenty-five year later, liberals — many of the same ones, it happens —welcomed Bill Clinton's perjury as evidence that lying about sex "doesn't count."
Hypocrisy? Obviously. Like there's something wrong with hypocrisy? Not in the world of liberal ethics: where ethics are simply situational.




