Moynihan Myths

3.29.03 | Mia T

[Mia T]

 

"Defining Deviancy Down"

IN ONE OF THE FOUNDING TEXTS OF SOCIOLOGY, The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), Emile Durkheim set it down that "crime is normal." "It is," he wrote, "completely impossible for any society entirely free of it to exist." By defining what is deviant, we are enabled to know what is not, and hence to live by shared standards….

The hope - if there be such - of this essay has been twofold. It is, first, to suggest that the Durkheim constant, as I put it, is maintained by a dynamic process which adjusts upwards and downwards. Liberals have traditionally been alert for upward redefining that does injustice to individuals. Conservatives have been correspondingly sensitive to downward redefining that weakens societal standards. Might it not help if we could all agree that there is a dynamic at work here? It is not revealed truth, nor yet a scientifically derived formula. It is simply a pattern we observe in ourselves. Nor is it rigid. There may once have been an unchanging supply of jail cells which more or less determined the number of prisoners. No longer. We are building new prisons at a prodigious rate. Similarly, the executioner is back. There is something of a competition in Congress to think up new offenses for which the death penalty is seemed the only available deterrent. Possibly also modes of execution, as in "fry the kingpins." Even so, we are getting used to a lot of behavior that is not good for us.

As noted earlier, Durkheim states that there is "nothing desirable" about pain. Surely what he meant was that there is nothing pleasurable. Pain, even so, is an indispensable warning signal. But societies under stress, much like individuals, will turn to pain killers of various kinds that end up concealing real damage..[NB: Cicero] There is surely nothing desirable about this. If our analysis wins general acceptance, if, for example, more of us came to share Judge Torres's genuine alarm at "the trivialization of the lunatic crime rate' in his city (and mine), we might surprise ourselves how well we respond to the manifest decline of the American civic order. Might.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan. American Scholar (Winter 1993)

"Well, how would you imagine that we would have got ourselves in the situation we're in now? We have a crisis of the regime. You cannot have this kind of conduct as normal and acceptable and easily dismissed unless there is a great effort to do so. And if, in addition to what we know, there are things we don't know, that will make it worse." 

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.)
commenting on Lewinsky et al.
ABC's "This Week," Sept. 6, 1998

"Well, how would you imagine that we would have got ourselves in the situation we're in now?"

To paraphrase Moynihan, "How the hell did America wind up with such a repugnant, corrupt, dysfunctional 'regime'?"

Moynihan, I am certain, wanted us to understand that the horrifying "situation we're in now " was a direct result of "defining deviancy down" by our society. He wanted us to understand that unless and until we define clinton deviancy as deviant, we allow for the possibility of clinton-deviant presidents.

NB Cicero: "But societies under stress, much like individuals, will turn to pain killers of various kinds that end up concealing real damage. There is surely nothing desirable about this."

You nailed it. I think Moynihan is, on one level, thinking here about his own drinking.

Unfortunately, he continued to "conceal real damage" -- his own -- with booze. I believe he understood that the "real damage" extended to our survival -- recall his comments about the impact of " the situation we're in now" on Iraq and N. Korea.

This is precisely why we must understand the dynamics of "the situation we're in now." Understanding the utter failure, the dysfunction, the danger of the clintons is only the beginning. We must understand our own failure, i.e., our defining deviancy down, that resulted in the election of dysfunctional, dangerous politicians like the clintons and Moynihan.

[YaYa123]

Tim Russert ended MTP today with a tearful eulogy to Moynihan....showed a series of his MTP appearances, listed some of his famous quotes.....with no mention, not a one, of his main contribution = a permanent perch for Hillary, from which to rule the world.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

So you don't think Moynihan left behind any loved ones, friends, constituents?

We will have to disagree on the morality of bashing the dead even before they are buried.

[WFTR]

I answered your question in my previous post. I know that he left behind people who cared, but a thread in a dedicated conservative forum is not a place where we should be expected to worry about them. As I said already, I wouldn't make a public protest or public statements. However, we have a right to discuss the truth about a public servant.

I noticed that you didn't answer my questions at all. I've often noticed that people who refuse to answer my questions typically realize that I'm right and just don't want to be drawn into anything that might force them to admit it. Instead, they just repeat whatever mantra they began. As long as your criticizing people for "being just like the other side," you need to realize that your refusal to answer questions and repeating of your mantra is exactly what the Clintonists have always done.

I guess we will have to disagree on telling the truth about someone who hypocritically postured about what was right but assisted those who were doing wrong whenever it really mattered.

WFTR
Bill

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I've made my feelings known. I won't debate the good or bad of Sen. Moynihan right now.

I thought it was tasteless of the Dems to use Wellstones death and FUNERAL for a political platform. I was extremely vocal about that when it happened. I won't be a hypocrit and dance on the FRESH grave of Sen. Moynihan. I'm being consistent.

Which is why I won't get into a debate about it at this time. I won't be "trapped" into doing what I find distasteful.

May Senator Moynihan rest in peace!

[WFTR]

I won't debate the good or bad of Sen. Moynihan right now.

That wasn't what I asked, and I think you realize that you are ducking the very relevant questions that I asked about your comments. As it's obvious that you won't answer the questions that I did ask, I suppose the discussion is closed.

[Mia T]

an additional clintonoid factoid:

Have you got a bead on the latest Hillary Low? Announcing Sen. Moynihan's death to the Senate BEFORE his family made the announcement as they desired? (I said it was a TRIUMPHANT HILLARY announcing the DEATH (welcome to her) of one of her enemies (for standing in the way of Hitlery care in 1992-93.)

Even though Sen. Moynihan lost his moral stature by standing with the Clintonista criminal regime - he once was a "light" in the lie-beral left for at LEAST opposing the Socialist healthcare agenda of the leading American Stalinist, Hitlery Clinton!

Just one more "notch" on her chart of her enemies now deceased.

6 posted on 03/31/2003 11:47 AM EST by Freedom'sWorthIt

Her sickening revisionist eulogizing tour was the initial reason for this post … but I didn't know that she scooped the family. What a piece of trash.

One thing is certain -- no one will rush to eulogize the clintons. Not even their "infrastructure."

[Mia T]

thx again for the info.

[Trust but Verify]

Well said. I don't see the point of this post. We all know what the Clintons are, there is plenty of a record on that. At this time I do not have the stomach for rehashing every bit of it.

As for Moynihan, the man is gone.