Replies

Famous American writers who were not Christian, such as Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, and Robert Heinlein, were wont to complain about the "Mrs. Grundy" factor, that is, public opinion that provided social constraints in the area of morality. To a large extent, the moral restraints evident in America before 1960, and particularly before 1900, were the result of societal opinion that strongly denounced sexual immorality. First elite academia and later the mass media toppled "Mrs. Grundy" from her high horse, all in the name of freedom and individualism. However, when that self-policing declined, so did American morality.

To this day, most people have "lines" they will not cross. Due to the constant bombardment by the liberal media and academia, that line has regularly been defined downward. In 1900, most people would have been aghast at the thought of permissive divorce laws or form revealing clothing on women. In 1950, these areas would have been more acceptable, but most people would have rejected casual sex and abortion on demand. Tolerance of these areas formerly condemned was widespread in 1980, but most people still regarded homosexuality and transvestism beyond the pale. The barriers against both these areas are falling in public opinion in 2004, but most people would still object to incest, polygamy, and child pornography. If the past is prologue, we may see these perversions accepted as "lifestyle choices" by 2025 or 2030.

Outside of Puritan New England, America never had anything like a religious police. Where personal morality was written into the law, it was the local sheriff or district attorney that enforced such laws, along with numerous other statutes. Laws against vice were enforced as were laws against pollution or disorderly conduct, so that civil order may be maintained. Furthermore, these were local matters. Someone who wanted the "wild" life could find it in the large port cities or the frontier mining towns.

Historically, centralized government has been a far greater foe of liberty than local ones. New York City under Boss Tweed or Louisiana under Huey Long may have been despotic, but no one had to live in either place if he had to. From the 1950s onward, the Supreme Court eviscerated the common law authority of local governments to control vice. Was liberty expanded? Not in the sense the Founding Fathers meant. Did Federal power usurp states' rights? Yes, under the adoption of political theories that have gradually turned our decentralized nation into a centralized one, like those countries in Europe the Founders considered to be poor examples of governance. It may be more difficult for a Huey Long to arise on a state or local level, but centralized government means that America may face a Huey Long writ large. In fact, Bill Clinton was to some extent just that.

Famous American writers who were not Christian, such as Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, and Robert Heinlein, were wont to complain about the "Mrs. Grundy" factor, that is, public opinion that provided social constraints in the area of morality. To a large extent, the moral restraints evident in America before 1960, and particularly before 1900, were the result of societal opinion that strongly denounced sexual immorality. First elite academia and later the mass media toppled "Mrs. Grundy" from her high horse, all in the name of freedom and individualism. However, when that self-policing declined, so did American morality.

IMHO, the toppling of "Mrs. Grundy" was abetted by Comstock and his ilk, who eleveated her to a precariously high pedestal on that high horse, and made it no longer a matter of "self policing", but government policy at the highest level.

In 1900, most people would have been aghast at the thought of permissive divorce laws or form revealing clothing on women. In 1950, these areas would have been more acceptable, but most people would have rejected casual sex and abortion on demand.

Yes, and they would have been absolutely apoplectic about the notion of some n****r marrying a white woman.

If you're going to discuss the merits of constraints based on public opinion, and/or of laws written to enforce those contraints, you have to deal with the whole package.

Fantastic. What an enjoyable thread. I hope the others who responded to me are reading what you wrote as well.

I hope at least you are teaching this stuff somewhere.

Or perhaps you should (or have) at least try and get elected somewhere. Alas, your response is a bit more nuanced and well thought out than your less refined SC's are used to understanding.