Squaring the Culture

Don’t know why I was thinking about this today, but here it is.

The legalization of abortion in the United States began as a need for women to avoid irresponsible men. Women who perceived themselves to have been abused or victimized by men, took radical action to prevent that from happening again. Since the point at which women are most vulnerable is when they’re pregnant — when they’re most in need of support and protection, and least able to provide it for themselves — freedom from irresponsible men meant the ability to absolutely control pregnancy. Birth control was not enough, because no birth control is foolproof. Abortion was necessary. With birth control and legal abortion, no women need ever be a victim.

While I don’t approve of women killing their children, and would prefer some solution to bad men mistreating women that runs short of aborting kids, I can at least understand the impulse. At least some of the perceived victimization was undoubtedly real, and probably more horrific than I care to examine.

What came next, though, I cannot understand.

What came next was that a huge percentage of the population that cared very little about the victimization of women jumped on board the abortion ship. These people had discovered that a life free of moral restrictions on sex was a lot easier than a morally coherent life. They’d decided to live as though it was ok to seduce and bed anybody they liked, whenever they liked, and devised rationalizations to explain why they accepted no responsibility for the consequences. To these folks, abortion was the perfect solution to the unfortunate, unintended consequence of their behavior called “a new human life”. If there existed an inviolable, morally imperitive right to abort one’s children, then they could screw with abandon, and never be forced to alter their lives to raise the resulting children.

The irony of this is of epic proportions; it reads like a Greek tragedy. The women who desired protection from irresponsible men chose a mechanism that was seized by those same irresponsible men, and opened a floodgate of irresponsibility that ultimately victimized women orders of magnitude more frequently. The legacy of legalized abortion is women pressured into abortions by boyfriends, husbands, and parents, women living for decades in a fog of post-traumatic stress after multiple abortions, women experiencing infertility and other health issues as a result of abortions, and a culture in which men cannot be persuaded to commit to women, protect them, and raise families. And because of that culture, women who choose not to abort their ill-conceived children have to raise them alone, because the men accept no responsibility for the children they’ve sired. The single, largest impoverished group in America is single women with children, thanks to the culture of sexual irresponsibility.

No, it’s not about “choice.” That’s just a marketing slogan, like “pro-life” is a marketing slogan. It was never about “choice.” The same people who insist on an absolute “freedom of choice” on this topic, are not nearly so adamant about protecting the freedoms to choose, say, to whom they might rent their apartment, or where they’re going to send their kids to school, or whether they can shop at Wal-Mart or drive a Hummvee. No, it’s not about choice: it’s about independence from men (for the feminists among us), and it’s about living as though sexual conduct needs no restraint.

To me, the most intriguing part of the scuffle over Rep Mark Foley’s exposure and resignation from the House of Representatives is the reaction from the Left.

Rep Foley was accused in public of soliciting sexual chat from minors of his own gender. He was tried in the court of public opinion, not in any court of law or even a House ethics committee, so it’s unclear exactly what he actually did, although it does seem clear that he’s sexually interested in younger men. He resigned with very little comment, and is not involved in the ensuing discussion.

On the surface, the Left has been blowing the horn of Child Safety: “Anybody who knew about Foley’s behavior and did not take action ought to step down.” There’s every indication that Democratic operatives had the goods on Rep Foley as early as last April, and did not release it until October, making them guilty of the very thing they’re accusing Republicans of; this makes the moral outrage appear completely political and opportunistic. The Democrats’ Echo Chamber in the press, repeating over and over how the Foley scandal will affect the oncoming elections, demonstrates just how badly the Democrats want the scandal to affect the elections.

But there has been editorializing as well, and two themes emerge from the editorials:

1) The Left is outraged that Rep Foley, who is widely believed to be homosexual, is “closeted.” He’s not openly gay; he’s secretly gay. This, the Left finds morally reprehensible and outrageous.

2) The Left is scornful of the fact that the Right has consistently advocated public morals, and sees Foley’s Fall as somehow a rebuttal of this advocacy.

Note carefully: the Left is NOT upset by the fact that a grown man is soliciting racy chat from teenage boys. They’ve actually defended and applauded this sort of behavior in the past (see wikipedia entries regarding scandals surrounding Rep. Gerry Studs and Rep. Barney Frank). Their denouncing of Foley’s behavior now is implied; they’re relying on the public’s disgust, not voicing any disgust of their own.

This makes item #2, above, a terribly cynical exercise. They’re scornful of the fact that people find sexually predatory behavior by adults toward children reprehensible, while using that very distaste as the weapon with which to beat Republicans. This is very like the Muslim terrorists using the American military’s distaste for targeting civilian populations as a weapon against us, hiding among civilians and making themselves indistinguishable from the civilians. It’s characteristic of evil to use good against the righteous as a weapon, even though it does not believe in doing good. Thus, leftists are pleased to use the moral outrage of decent citizens against the Republicans, even though they, themselves, feel very little outrage.

The argument seems to be that in order for a person advocate public morals, one must feel holier than the general population. This is, of course, nonsense, but a very specific sort of nonsense — it’s the rationalization of those who secretly, in their heart of hearts, think of themselves as LESS holy than the general population. It’s the self-defensive anger of those who have chosen to excuse immoral behavior in themselves, and feel the finger of guilt pointed at them; what they don’t realize is that they are the ones pointing the fingers at themselves. “The wicked flee when no one pursues,” says Solomon in the Proverbs. Guilty consciences lash out.

There are, no doubt, plenty of folks who preach morals out a self-satisfied arrogance, but they don’t represent the best, or even the bulk, of moral teaching; they’re an aberration. Much more common, and more representative of the Christian West, are those who recognize morals as the necessary bulwark against their own barbarism. We denounce adultery because we know how very easy it is for anyone, including ourselves, to fall into it. We denounce theft because we know, ourselves, what it’s like to be tempted to take what’s not ours. We denounce revenge because we’ve felt the urge to exact it. We train our children diligently to play fair, tell the truth, work hard, set goals, because we know how natural it is to cheat, lie, avoid work, and wander aimlessly. We react harshly to these things because civilization comes unglued if we relax and excuse them.

It’s easy and appealing to react with compassion to those who fall; after all, it might be us next. But there has to be a stiff price tag on self-indulgence, because every one of us is capable of it. Civilization hangs together on the common agreement that yes, we’re barbarians, but we’re not going to act like barbarians today. We’re going to behave better than that, because we all benefit when we do. And we’re going to exact a price from those who give in and act like barbarians today, because we want to make sure that we all make the same, common agreement tomorrow.

I feel genuinely sorry for Rep. Foley. He’s had his professional life shredded, and now faces a difficult rehabilitation. But I’m not sorry he resigned, and I’m not sorry he was exposed (I am appropriately incensed that cynical Democrats used his destruction for their own ends). Civilization is better off if the Foleys pay a stiff price for predatory behavior.

I’ll feel even better when Rep Barney Frank, Sen Ted Kennedy, Sen Hillary Clinton, Sen Chuck Shumer, and a number of others resign from Congress for their publicly-exposed incivility as well. But so long as only one party in American politics sees the need for enforcing civilization among their own, we’ll just have to make do with that.

I’m not embarrassed by the fall of Rep. Foley. There will always be those among the righteous who fall short of it themselves; and their advocacy of righteousness, even when violating it in private, is a better protection against human barbarity than is the facile indulgence of those who refuse to defend morals in order to excuse their own lapses.

Just read this on Malkin’s site. Leftists stormed the stage at Columbia University when the Minuteman Project’s Jim Gilchrist tried to speak there. They prevented him from speaking by rioting.

The Left: how they looooooooooooooooove free speech!

Read this article posted on townhall.com. Apparently some activists from the Left, disliking Michelle Malkin, decided to create a false image of her as hypocrite by posting images of her on spring break during her college years. Never mind that the argument would have been vapid even if accurate. The photos were not Malkin. They were photos of other girls, with Malkin’s head “photo-shopped” in.

One of the girls whose photos were stolen for the purpose objected and wrote the article I’m linking to.

Oh… and then, listen to how the Left rationalizes this completely unethical assault, from the comments that follow the townhall.com article:

Why do Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage, etc. etc. etc. continue to harp about “hate” when there is merely dissent, and then rant hatefully against those dissenters? It’s sickening and it lowers discourse to the level of photoshopping heads on half naked bodies. Hate breeds hate, people, and no one seems to do it better than this chick.

This leftist shill, who calls herself “Kimberly” and posts something about every single townhall article every day (suggesting that she’s a paid operative of some political organization), actually blames Malkin for the dishonest photographs. “If she wasn’t such an evil Republican, we wouldn’t be tempted to launch vile attacks at her!” Yes, and the Jews were to blame for the Nazis exterminating them, too. Good one, Kimberly.

Political debate is necessary. Character assassination is evil. Creating false images to commit character assassination is evil squared. And rationalizing evil is just, plain repulsive.

Welcome to the political Left.

Rep. Mark Foley, a popular, 6-term Representative from Florida, was recently found to have communicated via the internet with under-age male pages who worked at the House of Representatives. According to news sources, the Instant Messenger communications were sexually explicit, while the emails were a bit more circumspect.

Foley has resigned his seat in the House and announced he is entering rehab for “alcoholism and other behavioral problems.” Most likely, he’s a homosexual sex addict with a taste for teenage boys, but that’s for somebody else to decide. Rehab is the right step. I have sympathy for him, being in recovery myself from a condition that’s a cousin of the one Foley exhibits. I hope he recovers. Contrary to popular myth, recovery IS possible, and happens all the time, but it’s difficult, and there’s always a danger of relapse.

Democrats all over the country have seized on this incident and are flogging it for effect in the current election. Their current screeching is for “immediate hearing” to determine “who knew about this, and why didn’t they do anything about it.”

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R, Il.) apparently knew of the emails some time ago, and referred the matter to authorities. The FBI did not open an investigation because they did not have any indication of criminal activity.

The truth is, when something like this hits the fan, everybody involved can see the warning signs in retrospect. They saw them at the time, and wondered about them, but the notion that somebody near, dear, and friendly could actually be something so foreign and frightening is just unthinkable. You simply don’t accuse friends of pedophilia, or insanity, or anything like that; those are frightening things, about which you know nothing, and which are simply implausible to think about a good person.

This is normal; we don’t know how to react to things that are seriously abnormal, so we deny them. It turns out that newspapers knew about the emails for at least a year, and did not think the matter newsworthy at the time. Even they, who benefit from drama, did not want to accuse Rep. Foley of what turned out to be the real problem. Says the Miami Herald,

Some newspapers — including this one — knew of this message as well and did not find it worthy of a news story because it seemed innocuous. Thus, Democratic charges of a ”cover up” of Mr. Foley’s activities by the Republican House leadership seem not only premature but crassly political.

Plus this from the Associated Press article,

“Our decision at the time was … that because the language was not sexually explicit and was subject to interpretation, from innocuous to ’sick,’ as the page characterized it, to be cautious,” said Tom Fiedler, executive editor of the Herald. “Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay, and lacking any corroborating information, we chose not to do a story.”

Nobody wants the guy to be abnormal. That’s just too traumatic for us. So we push it off, until it’s just not possible to push it off any longer.

The timing of the release is political, and truly disgusting; Democrats had a similar incident in 1983, and did NOT require the Representative to resign. The calls for House Speaker Hastert to resign are ridiculous. In hindsight we can say “we should have known,” but at the time, nobody will make the accusation for ordinary, human reasons.