| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Sanford to Hang Mostly by Moral Majority's Rope
Remember Jimmy Swaggart? He was the TV preacher who wept before America after a tryst with a prostitute. "I have sinned against you, my Lord,” choked Swaggart through tears. “I would ask that your precious blood would wash and cleanse every stain until it is in the seas of God's forgiveness." The fall of televangelism in many ways foreshadowed the decline of the so-called moral majority. The Right is now reaping what it sowed. By making social conservatism central to its platform, it left no room in the GOP for sinners.
Now we have the Sanford affair. Many on the Right had pinned their hopes on the SC governor. He’s a solid, smart fiscal conservative and liberty lover. Yet his political career will very probably dissolve. Why? Not because what he did was unforgivable. Because back in the 1980s and 90s, the Right set itself up to make hypocrites out of human beings—if but by association with Jerry Falwell under the “Big Tent”. That's why I agree with Patrick Ruffini here.
As I have argued elsewhere, it is time to purge the Right’s politics of social conservatism. That doesn't mean anyone should give up his or her values. It means personal values should be left entirely to the private sphere. The Right should make social toleration and pluralism its new plank. Indeed, there is plenty of contrast between real pluralism and the groupist multiculturalism most of the far left embraces. And you can still have your Bible, virtues and righteousness in the free market of values—i.e. at home and at church.
Of course, there are egregious moral acts the discovery of which no politician – Democrat or Republican – should survive. Breaking a solemn contract with a spouse may very well be one of them. But legal bedroom behavior between consenting adults ain’t one of them. And public moralizing has definitely become a political liability for Republicans. The Right has set up the conditions such that no one in their party can ever have a peccadillo. They have driven their sinful behavior into a black market of their own creation. In the age of transparency, however, your trysts and broken taboos will be sniffed out quickly. And it’s not just for politically pragmatic reasons that the Right should give up on public moralizing a la Falwell. It’s also that it’s none of the government’s business what people do in their bedrooms, so it doesn't belong in ANY platform.
- Max Borders's blog
- Login or register to post comments


Comments
Max Borders is right, Ruffini's wrong...
I strongly disagree with Patrick Ruffini's message elsewhere on this blog. If political positions mean anything, then their advocates ought to live by those rules. This why Tom Daschle's tax troubles prevented him from joining the Obama Administration: everyone knows O. will have to raise taxes at some point so you don't want a tax cheater on board.
Republicans face a different set of standards. Either they impose a strict series of heterosexual monogamous rules on their top politicians, or else they will have to swiftly assign anybody who violates the rules of the social conservative right to the trashbin of history.
MARCU$
This is severly misguided
First, the political reality is that neither major party can change their profile on social issues much due to the legitimate, organic beliefs of all Americans, whether on the right or left. Just as there is a substantial amount of people who are socially liberal, there is probably even more who are socially conservative. For Republicans, social conservatives (along with the often overlapping military culture) provide the votes while businessmen, whether small or big, provide the money. Americans have very different beliefs on important questions. The two parties can't both have the same general answer.
More importantly, social conservative policies speak to many Americans as a solution to a culture that in many ways (but we must be careful to not say all ways) is in decline. So now, the right shouldn't be against family breakdown, rampant divorce, etc. because some of its leaders fail morally? What sense does that make?
I also resent the implication being made that religious believers need to shut up in the public square. This goes against everything America was founded upon. Are we telling atheists that they can't voice their beliefs? No, and we shouldn't because everyone outside of neo-Nazis and Klansmen have a right to make the case for their belief system publicly. I mean, I guess Martin Luther King Jr. should have remained silent, because ministers should only voice their concerns in church and at home.
This type of post is emblomatic of the decline of libertarainism into mere libertinism. Think about it for a second, in which society will there be a smaller government, one with 10 percent illegitimacy and strong families, or 40 percent illegitimacy and weak families? Government expands when the strength of non-state actors like families, churches, voluntary societies, or even unions contract. For the sake of libertarianism, you should hope for a mostly traditional society.
Nobody gets beat up on the Internet more than social conservatives. Young, tech savvy people are the natural antagonists of social conservatism and social conservatives are generally not around to defend themselves because I'm sure they're online less. They don't have time to engage in comment wars. Don't believe what you hear on websites and message boards are representative of America at large.
The Standards Arguement
I know every shade of liberal and ever shade of republican (I think). Surpisingly I find most all of them believe in the same things . . . more than they'd believe. What is different is how different attitudes are prioritized, legislated and enforced. Every one of these groups believe in marriage and are pro-marriage. I've simply never heard anyone say it's o.k. to stray.
Republicans have gotten themselves in a bind not because they believe in the sanctity of marriage, or that they talk about it, it's that they've used it as an offensive political tool. Get a conservative in a room and a liberal or libertarian and talk about marraige. Not one of them is going to say divorce, cheating and lying is good. However, when it goes from the polimical to the political, the nature of the issue changes. It goes from 'how can we make things better', to 'how can I make me look better at the expense of someone else'.
Now, I agree with you about the expansion of the state and the contraction of civic groups. But there are many possible reasons for that. I would say, but I don't know, is that there is less civic participation but there is less civic coercion as well. Women aren't forced to stay in a bad marriages for economic or social reason. We have a much more fluid and transient society. We are deluged with choices and a media. Given more choices, the chance of choosing wrongly will increase.
What's the answer to a better society? Be a good example, and I see that being played out on the left and on the right. What I don't always see (because good marriages aren't newsworthy) is that in politics. We asked for freedom, now we're getting it. What we should be asking for, not telling to, is responsibility.
You have two groups who ony opposed each other on small issues, but the differences get fought over bitterly not out of good governance, but because each group wants to win. That's what I see.
republicans don't want socons to be online.
they have consistently acted against the public interest in ways that are detrimental to free market society, in order to preserve the bigotries of social conservatives.
Social Conservatives, as liberals tend to think of them, only truly exist down South (and in Utah). The rest of the country loathes them, particularly the young.
I have a great deal of respect for anyone of strong moral fiber. be they liberal or conservative. I have zero respect for rapists who use their positions of power in church to ensure that their progeny comes to terms. These positions do not contradict.
> RE: Palko
> The two parties can't both have the same general answer.
If the vanguards of the party can't keep their pants zipped, the party has no choice. This country feeds on hypocrisy. The media adores it. Every time a Republican does something stupid, he's tarred and feathered to twice the extent any Democrat would be. Republicans everywhere lose legitimacy.
> So now, the right shouldn't be against family breakdown, rampant divorce, etc. because some of its leaders fail morally?
The right can be against whatever it wants. The question is, will anyone bother listening?
Hey Jefferson and Adams, STFU, Max knows best.
Thomas Jefferson:“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
James Madison“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
George Washington:“The thing that separates the American Christian from every other person on earth is the fact that he would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!”
Daniel Webster“There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from anothe quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing.”
“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”
“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instruction and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may ovenvhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”
“If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, error will be; If God and His Word are not known and received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendancy, If the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will; If the power of the Gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of the land, anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without mitigation or end.”
Noah Webster:“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed….No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
“When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty;
“If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for the selfish or local purposes;
“Corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded.
“If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”
“Corruption of morals is rapid enough in any country without a bounty from government. And…the Chief Magistrate of the United States should be the last man to accelerate its progress.”
God damned sanctimonious moralizers.... they should have listened to the Max's of their day.. maybe they would have achieved something then.
Some outside reading for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Better than appeal to ignorance and stupidity
lol
Who was Sally Hemmings? And where are Ben Franklin's pants?
N/T
he left them in france.
damn hellraiser.
The Benefits of Hypocrisy
If Thomas Jefferson weren't a hypocrite the Declaration of Independence could not have been written. Hypocrisy makes it possible for moral goals to exceed current practice.
Required reading: The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson.
Submitted by Knackers on Wed
Submitted by Knackers on Wed Air Jordans nike Air max Nike air max 97 nike shox Nike Dunk SB Shoes
ED Hardy, Caps, Clothing,
ED Hardy, Caps, Clothing, Shoes, Shirts, Swimwear, Belts, Sunglasses, Perfume, Dresses By Christian Audigier. cheap Ed Hardy Ed Hardy Ed Hardy Children's T-shirts. Ed Hardy Men's Beach Shorts. Ed Hardy Men's Jeans Ed Hardy Women's Dresses. Ed Hardy Women's Hoodies. Ed Hardy Women's Jeans UK Ed Hardy Ed Hardy Sale links of london Jewellery Sale
ED Hardy, Caps, Clothing,
very nice