Once again, the Left's twisted view of the Right's view of 'moral' illustrates their own lack of understanding of the issue.
Posted on 11/11/2004 6:30:57 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
| So here's the proposition: anyone who goes to church once a week must automatically hate gays and oppose abortion, and is therefore moral. By contrast, a campaigner, say, against environmental destruction or third world poverty is necessarily immoral, because he or she must surely also believe women should be able to control their own fertility and that gay people should have equal rights. America's election has many unhappy consequences, not the least of which is to skew totally the argument about morality. Suddenly, it's not "the economy, stupid", it's all about morality. We are, of course, different from them. The pollsters have found a yawning gap between characteristic British attitudes and those of the middle Americans who returned George Bush to power. There is talk of culture wars, of a sudden realisation that they are far less like us than we thought. They are hot against abortion; we are not. They are church-goers, by massive majorities; we are not. They embrace a culture of armed self-defence, the death penalty and homophobia that feels utterly alien to the modern urban Briton. When you actually dig down into the statistics, things are not quite as simple. We have to remember that America is divided internally, and that the basic attitudes to gay rights or abortion of Kerry-voting west and east-coasters are very similar to those of liberal Europeans. All that said, it is hard to ignore the fact of a divide - that, according to the pollsters Populus, for instance, only 2% of British voters go to church more than once a week, whereas 63% of Bush voters do; or that 77% of Bush voters say abortion should always be illegal, while just 4% of British voters do. Probably, the fundamental reasons for this divide are historic. They are to do with the way Protestant churches grew, competitively, in America; with the decline in religious faith in Britain; and with the impact of geography in the huge, isolated spaces of the US hinterland. Bush-voting Americans believe in their manifest destiny in a way Victorians here believed that the Almighty backed the empire, and they will one day discover their mistake as painfully as Britain did. For progressive people here, though, the urgent task is to respond coherently to the assertion of these "Bush values" by the American majority. We live in a porous world, and if we suck in US culture in all its guises, and follow US political techniques and ideas, it is idle to suppose we are entirely immune from contagion. The homophobic Italian Buttiglione has already called for a new European Christian movement to turn back the tide of secular and progressive values. We can all see fights ahead. To succeed, we have first to reclaim morality. Nothing has been more damaging to the left than the smear that everyone who supports, say, redistribution of wealth, is also by definition keen on compulsory adultery, the decriminalisation of all drugs and free access for armed burglars to pensioners' homes. (If you think I exaggerate for comic effect, think again: that is a reasonable precis of what they say about us.) Labour voters, and feminists, are if anything inclined to be angrier about lawlessness and an over-sexualised public culture than Tory voters. It's the poor who are the most vulnerable, not the rich and powerful. More than that, though, we have to return the idea of morality, or the question of how to live a good life, to the wider context it originally had. The Republicans now offer a very limited view of what a moral person is. The suggestion is that a family man who owns a couple of gas-guzzling cars, several homes, a motor-yacht and a private plane, who avoids taxes by clever siting of his company, and who can't stand "queers" and foreigners, yet goes to church twice a week, is living an ideal moral life. In fact, for many of us, he would be about the least moral example we could think of. From the outside, it looks as if conservative Americans have made a fetish of a few isolated issues, while ignoring far harder and more painful questions. It isn't simply "religion": it is a convenient form of political denial by the richest, most environmentally rapacious people on the planet. Another, more traditional view of morality demands instead a sense of proportion, fairness and civic-mindedness. The cheap land and sprawl of middle America may encourage an every-family-for-itself politics; in Europe's compact, crowded cities, other values have been needed and are now, more than ever. Modern Britishness is unthinkable without tolerance and give and take; we are too small, packed and diverse an island to live in any other way. Demography and geography are on the side of progressive moral ideas. As we live longer, then the good life involves looking after others at both ends of their lives. It is about doing our duty by those around us, which means supporting national systems of welfare and health provision as well as helping family, friends and neighbours. In a diverse country, tolerance is often hard: nothing scares me as much as religious fundamentalism and the irrationality it brings. In the end, the testing of ideas in open, democratic societies is a safer way of picking our way through ethical issues than turning back to the words of pre-medieval prophets. But as a resolutely secular person, I also understand that others think differently, and have a right to do so. The good life is also now environmental. As we observe the alarming effects of global warming and environmental degradation, it means showing restraint in our materialism and thinking of the future. Not Puritanism, necessarily, but a material modesty and an avoidance of excess and waste. This notion of the good life does not stop at the end of the road or the end of the island. One of the few causes generating real excitement and commitment among younger voters are development issues in general, and the plight of Africa in particular. And it isn't the moral-majority Bush administration which is campaigning on debt relief; it is British Labour politicians, both Blair and Brown. These are "moral values" which generations of socialists and liberals would have instinctively understood. It is the proper meaning of the phrase. Nothing could be more dangerous or degrading for modern politics than a radical narrowing of the meaning of morality to a cluster of issues chosen by religious fundamentalists, and carried into democratic discourse in a mood of angry biblical division. America is a democracy whose awesome material power makes it a special case - the only country whose election is also, in some sense, ours too. But when we're lectured about the revival of morality, there can be only one response: they've stolen the word from us, and it's time to take it back. |
Explains everything.
Here's the Republican ideal of a moral man: a man who works hard every day without looking for a handout. A man who provides for his family and is faithful to his wife. A man who eschews sexual perversion and debauchery. A man who takes responsibility for his actions and their consequences. A man who spends time and effort on raising his children. A man who is humble enough to get down on his knees and thank his heavenly Father for his blessings.
How incredibly narrow minded.....or is it simple minded?
When you passionately advocate immorality down your neighbors throat, you get my attention. I will put down my check book to smack you around.
Once again, the Left's twisted view of the Right's view of 'moral' illustrates their own lack of understanding of the issue.
"How incredibly narrow minded.....or is it simple minded?"
Actually, it's CLOSE MINDED! This article does nothing but mock those who live by values.
Am I the only one that noticed "morality" and "fetishists" are in the SAME sentence?
Talk about a contridiction!
They will NEVER get it.
What are the odds of this phrase even being honestly used here in the US by some of those lefty loons, hmmm?
I get a chuckle out of it when they tell you they're against the death penalty, but for abortion. We can't be executing those mass murderers--that would be inhumane. But it's quite alright to execute an unborn child.
"The Republicans now offer a very limited view of what a moral person is. The suggestion is that a family man who owns a couple of gas-guzzling cars, several homes, a motor-yacht and a private plane, who avoids taxes by clever siting of his company, and who can't stand "queers" and foreigners, yet goes to church twice a week, is living an ideal moral life. In fact, for many of us, he would be about the least moral example we could think of."
Yep. You highlighted the real meat of this rant. As long as they keep thinking like this, we'll be able to fight effectively.
How can moral relativists reclaim morality?
Morality is an absolute, so if one has an absence of it, it's not because someone 'stole' it from them. That's a ridiculous idea. It's because they've decided not to have it.
They keep talking of 'taking back' religion, morality, Christianity, etc. What they really mean is 'redefine'.
Here's a little secret:
Most Bush voters AREN'T evangelical Christians. But most of us REALLY DON'T LIKE IT when Democrats go so far out of their way to insult them, and Christianity as well.
In order for the Democrats to gain any legitimacy among people who have not rejected God, they first need to get rid of the large body of their supporters whose outspoken hostility toward Christianity powers their world-view.
When they let the anti-religious bigots control the dialogue, there's no way they can gain support in Middle America.
They can't see that. They don't understand that you can't portray religious believers the way they have, and expect to get their support. Kind of like you can't appeal to the "NASCAR Dads" if your base portrays them as ignorant, inbred hicks, the white male sources-of-all-evil.
In short, Dems, you can't be the party of International A.NS.W.E.R. and the party of John Kennedy at the same time.
OK, that's it. No more free tips to the other side...
These people and morals never even met, and they presume to criticize others?
"The Republicans now offer a very limited view of what a moral person is. The suggestion is that a family man who owns a couple of gas-guzzling cars, several homes, a motor-yacht and a private plane, who avoids taxes by clever siting of his company, and who can't stand "queers" and foreigners, yet goes to church twice a week, is living an ideal moral life. In fact, for many of us, he would be about the least moral example we could think of."
Except for the part about queers and foreigners I thought he was talking about John Kerry.
Seems like a limited view of, "What a Republican is," is also in the offering..
Bloody heathens they are!
Hmm, let's see here.
1. Churchgoers. Got us there.
2. Armed citizens. Yes, got us there, too. In fact, we will fight and die rather than be disarmed as the British were.
3. Death penalty. Yes, got us there too, we're pretty much in favor of the execution of murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and spies. That way they don't get out on bail, early release, or whatever and do it again...plus it gives prospective murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and spies something to mull over.
4. Homophobia. Wrong. Homophobia is the fear of homosexuals, and we are not afraid of them. Most of us don't like them and don't approve of their immoral life style but that's about it. We don't hate them per se.
"everyone who supports, say, redistribution of wealth, is also by definition keen on compulsory adultery, the decriminalisation of all drugs and free access for armed burglars to pensioners' homes"
The problem is that, while surely there are many liberals who support only redistribution of wealth, the loudest and most influential ones do indeed support not only redistribution, but drug liberalization, gun bans, and various radical fringe ideas.
The far left must really think we are stupid, since they have been stating right out loud that they will "talk" about morality and values; but there is no indication that they will actually live it.
Message to leftists: The reason you lost isn't that you don't profess a morality, it is the principles and purposes of the morality you profess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.