06/25/2009 (7:11 am)
Why Sanford’s Fall Does Not Mean Social Conservatives Should Shut Up
I punctuated my morning scan of the headlines with an obscenity after reading this headline referring to Gov. Mark Sanford’s admission of an extramarital affair, from the Washington Times:
Social conservatives fall from moral high ground
This is a “moderate” Republican publication displaying its distaste for the fact that social conservatives still hold some influence in the Republican party. Their first reaction is the reaction of the worst moral pariahs in the world: “Good, we can rub it in the faces of those who remind us that we have moral responsibility. We hate moral responsibility, we hate being reminded that we have it, and we especially hate the person who dares to remind us. So when one of them demonstrates that they’re fallen just like the rest of us, we can use that to shut them up!”
We hear this same baloney every time a social conservative commits a sin.
Look, Sanford chose to be a scumbag. He enjoyed his little distraction for 8 years while his wife raised his four boys and ran his campaigns for him. He does not deserve her. He does deserve whatever pain and trouble this is about to cause him. His wife and boys deserve our compassion. Gov. Sanford does not deserve our compassion, but we owe it to him anyway, because every one of us is a sinner capable of similar misbehavior or worse, and we have all received compassion from God.
But when I hear somebody, especially somebody from my own party, using the ruin of a family and a promising career to sully the reputations of others who have not similarly fallen, in an attempt to silence voices advocating moral behavior, I have to suppress the urge to break noses.
Wearily I suppress the urge, and wearily I drag out my lecture regarding why it is not just important, it is required, it is essential, it is indispensable, to articulate ordinary morality in the public hearing loudly and often, why the fact that every one of us who does so is human and fallible does not suggest that we should stop, and why we cannot, ever, under any excuse, for any reason, condone treating sexual license, or any other moral failing for that matter, as though it was some small thing.
The survival of civilization rests on the clear articulation of moral standards. Without them, we die.
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 is like to be tempted to take what is not ours. We denounce revenge because we have 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.
Every time somebody who stands for virtue publicly gets caught in some moral failing, the hyenas and baboons screech, howl, and bay about how anybody who defends public morality must be, likewise, a hypocrite. The argument seems to be that in order for a person advocate public morals, one must feel holier than the general population.
This is vicious nonsense, but a very specific sort of vicious nonsense. It is the rationalization of those who secretly, in their heart of hearts, think of themselves as less holy than the general population. It is the self-defensive anger of those who have chosen to excuse immoral behavior in themselves, and feel the finger of accusation pointed at them. What they do not realize is that the finger pointing at them is their own. “The wicked flee when no one pursues,” says Solomon in the Proverbs. Guilty consciences lash out.
It is easy and appealing to react with compassion to those who fall; after all, it might be us next. Compassion is appropriate, 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 Governor Sanford. I feel a great deal worse for his wife and children, who are the primary victims here. But I am not sorry he was exposed, and I am not sorry his career will suffer. Civilization is better off when the Mark Sanfords pay a stiff price for their moral failings.
I will feel even better when Rep. Barney Frank, Sen. Ted Kennedy, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Chuck Shumer, Sen. Chris Dodd, Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Jack Murtha, and a number of others suffer publicly for their publicly-exposed incivilities as well. But so long as only one party in American politics sees the need for enforcing civilization among its own, we’ll just have to make do with that.
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 choose to excuse their own lapses by pretending that morals do not exist. I feel far less contempt for hypocrites like Sanford than I feel for the hyenas who avoid hypocrisy by abandoning morals altogether.
The Washington Times can go pound sand.
As for Gov. Sanford, I’m very disappointed. He was my choice for John McCain’s running mate a year ago; he has governed well, and had promise. My condolences to his wife and sons; I will pray for them. However, I have to echo Michelle Malkin’s sentiments, coming, as they do, from a married woman who feels the betrayal in her gut:
If you can’t honor your marriage vows, how can you expect voters to trust you to honor your damned oath of office?
Idiot.
The bulk of this essay was reproduced from an earlier essay written after the resignation of Rep. Mark Foley in 2006, before this blog was launched publicly. The original article can be found here.
« « I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist: The Moral Argument | Main | “NO” to Cap-and-Trade » »
15 Comments »
Comment by dullhammer
Well put article.
Especially the one word summary at the end.
Also, if anyone doubts that the moral low ground wishes desperately to see more conservatives fall, just read this:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/21/palin-spars-critics-ethics-complaints/
Gov. Palin has endured 18 charges of ethics violations, all of which have been dismissed, but putting her in more than $500,000 in legal debt.
And we wonder why there are no honest politicians left in the system.
Comment by Joseph W. Huster
Phil,
I don’t see anyone denouncing moral responsibility. Critics are mainly denouncing hypocrisy. They are denouncing the lack of empathy for human weakness in others, when it is also present within one’s self.
Yes, the behavior of hypocrites tends to sully the reputation of non hypocrites who espouse (and actually live by) the exact same principles. This is unfortunate, but you have to ask yourself, who hath made Israel to sin?
Also, you yourself have disparaged “liberals” as an unprincipled lot, based on the unprincipled and hypocritical behavior of some. You have even said that this is a reason not to listen to them.
If hypocrisy is a reason not to listen to liberals, then its also a reason not to listen to conservatives. Correct?
Personally, I don’t think there is a good reason not to listen to anyone who is willing to publicly make an argument in favor of his or her position. No matter how hypocritical a person is, they still might be right.
Joe
Comment by turfmann
Well, I suppose that the one prospective GOP candidate who can be counted upon not to cheat on their wife is Sarah Palin.
Unless, of course, Andrew Sullivan goes off his medications completely – he will find a way to invent a wife for her.
I agree with the point made that one who cannot show fidelity to one’s marriage vows is suspect when entrusted with the oath of political office. Having said that RR was divorced…
Krauthammer mentioned last night that he thought the entire episode was an act of political suicide.
That said, protestors are being butchered in Iran, NK is getting ready to launch a missile in our direction on July 4th, we are careening towards national bankruptcy and the media wants to talk about someone’s marital infidelity.
Our society is certifiably insane.
Comment by Phil
Joe –
I’m kinda curious whether you actually think what you wrote here is reasonable argumentation, or if it was just a throwaway so you could say something. I’m also a little curious why you seem to have adopted my blog as a sort of commentary project, offering the mid-left intellectual line on everything I post. Care to comment on those questions?
I have to wonder, upon reading your first paragraph, whether you actually read the essay here. Those accusations — hypocrisy, and the lack of empathy — are the CENTRAL THEME of my essay. Maintaining civilization is the reason why we must exact a price for immoral behavior, even though we feel compassion — and we maintain civilization in this manner specifically because we know we all can be tempted in the same manner. Reread the piece (assuming you even read it the first time) and you’ll see what I mean.
As to your lame attempt at moral equivalence, which is the left’s favorite tactic when caught in an inconsistency (and when are they NOT caught in an inconsistency?) you absolutely have to be joking. The instances you’ll find on this blog that raise the hypocrisy of leftists and Democrats (I hardly ever use the term “liberal,” so I’m wondering who you’re quoting) invariably object to their advocating opposite policies at different times, according to the political need. We’re not talking here of Gov. Sanford advocating adultery after denouncing it; we’re talking about him admitting to a sin he’s previously recognized as a sin. The fact that he’s acknowledging it as sin, and acknowledging that it caused damage, makes his advocacy of family values consistent. He’s not changed his stance; he’s fallen short of it, but acknowledged that the goal is still a worthy goal. Surely you recognize the difference.
I know of no Republicans today excusing Gov. Sanford, so, no, I don’t see any reason to distrust conservatives. It wasn’t even a good try, Joe. That’s just lame.
No matter how hypocritical a person is, they still might be right.
Perhaps, but if it’s demonstrated that they choose their positions by political expediency rather than by evaluating facts, then it’s frequently a waste of time to listen to their reasons. You’re just as likely to get a correct position out of the Magic Eight Ball. I’d rather evaluate the positions of people who have done their homework before deciding where they stand, and I’ll generally consider the arguments of anybody who fits that description, regardless of their point of view.
Comment by darkhorse
Phil said:
“My condolences to his wife and sons; I will pray for them.”
They are likely not the ones in the need of prayer…let me encourage you to not withhold support of the fallen Sanford…
Not that you don’t know that, but you seem pretty angry with him right now.
Comment by Joseph W. Huster
Phil,
First, what is the main point of your blog entry? You’re arguing that the fact that we are all fallen and weak should not preclude us from defending moral responsibility. Your point is that people who don’t like the idea of moral responsibility are taking advantage of the hypocrisy of Sanford and other fallen defenders of morality, to discredit the defense of moral responsibility by anyone at all.
Correct?
My point is that you have misdiagnosed what the critics are doing. They are not, as you suggest, decrying the idea of moral responsibility, or its defenders. They are pointing out that the least compassionate among us are often the biggest offenders. They are pointing out that many of those who have used the power of their office to deny others legal protections for their unions, based on their supposed “respect for the sanctity of marriage,” don’t give a rat’s ass about the sanctity of their own marriages.
That’s a legitimate criticism. I don’t see any inconsistency in pointing this out. It seems perfectly legitimate, in a policial debate, to point out that your opponents are making an argument that they don’t actually believe, or, at the very least, aren’t willing to live up to themselves.
Second, you don’t use the term “liberal.” “Leftist” and “democrat” are your terms. But you have said, repeatedly, that you do not trust “leftists” and see no reason to listen to them, based on their dishonesty.
I don’t see how this posture is any different from the alleged posture you are assigning to those that you think are trying to silence the defenders of moral responsibility. According to you, they are saying, “don’t listen to social conservatives because they are hypocrites.” How is your general posture towards leftists any different? That’s the point I was making – and its not in any way “lame.”
You claim that you think Democrats chose their positions based on policial expediency raither than conviction, and, therefore, you don’t need to consider what they say. But that is precisely the claim that you think is being used to club social conservatives – “based on their actions its clear that social conservatives don’t really believe in the sanctity of marriage, so no one needs to listen to them.”
Nor does it help you to argue that your lack of trust is justified. The people who you think are trying to silence the defenders are moral responsibility are equally justified – Limbaugh, Gingrich, Craig, Foley, Vitter, Ensign, Sanford . . . all vocal social value conservatives who have acted contrary to their words.
As for why I come on your blog, I enjoy it. I like to read people with whom I disagree. It keeps me sharp. I write entries to challenge you and your readers’ assumptions and reasoning. Surely you’re up for that, right?
I’m confident that when I’m wrong, you’ll expain how and why to your readers. So you should welcome me as, at the very least, a useful idiot.
But if you want me to go, just say the word.
Joe
Comment by Phil
My point is that you have misdiagnosed what the critics are doing. They are not, as you suggest, decrying the idea of moral responsibility, or its defenders. They are pointing out that the least compassionate among us are often the biggest offenders. They are pointing out that many of those who have used the power of their office to deny others legal protections for their unions, based on their supposed “respect for the sanctity of marriage,” don’t give a rat’s ass about the sanctity of their own marriages.
That’s a legitimate criticism.
What you’ve done here, Joe, is simply lay a different template over the same behavior I described, giving it a more flattering explanation. I don’t think you’ll be surprised to discover that I disagree with your explanation.
The reason I don’t accept your explanation is threefold. The first reason is in the original article. What you’re saying is what social progressives always say about social conservatives — they’re heartless bastards, they don’t care. However, as I explain, it’s not a lack of compassion that prompts social conservatives to take the positions they take; it’s a concern for the stability of civilization. That’s the point of the essay. Social conservatives admitting sin when they sin is consistent with that concern.
The second reason is that social research on the matter, and also the outcomes of policy preferences, pretty consistently demonstrate that it’s conservatives who genuinely care about the poor and weak, and progressives who despise them. Conservatives routinely give more to charity than progressives, even though their income is less. Conservative policies rescue entire cities from poverty and deterioration, remove people from welfare roles, restore to them dignity and confidence. Progressive policies invariably enslave the poor to the government dole, and keep them sequestered within their deteriorating enclaves. I can recall no policy advocated by progressives that has ever lifted a single individual out of poverty. Progressives practically destroyed New York City in the 1970s and 80s, and it took Rudy Giuliani to restore sanity to the city. The poor suffered under the left, and prospered under the right. In general, saying conservatives lack compassion is partisan hokum.
The third reason is the inconsistency in your position. When progressives call conservatives “heartless,” their proof is that some of those who stand for a reasonable standard of public morality commit sins. And yet, we all agree that humans sin, that sin is common to humanity. You’ve said this, and I’ve said it, too, several times. Conservatives and liberals actually agree on this. Right? Well, if that’s so, Joe, then we can’t use the ordinary sin of humans as proof of anything other than humanness, can we?
The same people who are using “we’re all human” as the reason for what they call compassion on those who are weak, use the very same behavior in conservatives as the proof that they “don’t give a rat’s ass” about morality. So explain to me, if you can, how the very same behavior that is a reason for compassion and proof of ordinary humanness in one group, is a reason for contempt and proof of viciousness in another. It would seem to me that the consistent position, if they really think humanity is prone to this weak sort of behavior, would be simply to note that people on all sides of all issues have the same weaknesses, and that the conservatives’ weakness proves the thesis. After all, if the behavior of conservatives is the same as the behavior of everybody else, it’s pretty tough to make a case that their sameness proves that they’re different (e.g., more uncaring than others). Neh?
So I don’t think your explanation is the right one. Social progressives use the same evidence of humanness, for which they excuse their own kind, to condemn those who stand for public morals. You might be able to convince me that they do this simply as a vicious tactic to discredit their political and social opponents. However, I think there are deeper motives at work: I think they do it because it’s social conservatives who remind them that they have abandoned ordinary virtue and made themselves something less than fully human, and they hate them for it.
My analysis is not flattering, granted. I do believe it’s accurate. Naturally, the least moral among us are not going to go around admitting that they’ve abandoned morality, are they? Of course not. What they do, instead, is to give morality a political definition rather than a behavioral one, so that they can call themselves “moral” simply because they believe the right thing, and their opponents “heartless bastards” because they believe the wrong thing. That way, people whose behavior makes them the least moral among us, feel perfectly justified calling themselves the most moral among us — and they don’t have to lift a finger to amend their character, they just have to believe the right thing. It’s virtue on the cheap, a foolproof system of rationalization, and it’s the rot at the heart of Western culture.
By the way, I understand how this works because I did it myself for many years, and I watched my siblings do it, too. I escaped it by the grace of God, not by any particular virtue of my own. My own personal history is far from spotless.
Limbaugh, Gingrich, Craig, Foley, Vitter, Ensign, Sanford . . . all vocal social value conservatives who have acted contrary to their words.
But Joe, since all humans sin, it wouldn’t matter if you had 100 examples, or 1000, or if every single conservative in the universe acted contrary to the standards they articulate. Why? Because, as we all agree, humans sin. Moreover, a standard is supposed to be high. Standards are useless if they’re simple to achieve. If we’re going to be better than we are, we have to set the bar beyond where we are now. To quote a line from a movie I like, “It’s supposed to be hard… It’s the ‘hard’ that makes it great.” The inevitable result, if we set the bar high, is that some are going to fall short. In what way does that discredit those who have articulated the standard? “Man’s reach must ere exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”
On the other hand, you might want to read this article by Peter Schweitzer, that establishes that there exist replicable correlations between political belief and moral behavior. In general, it turns out in practice that conservatives really do behave in a more moral fashion that liberals. However, since all humans sin, it’s not very hard to find a conservative who sins.
As for why I come on your blog, I enjoy it. I like to read people with whom I disagree. It keeps me sharp… So you should welcome me as, at the very least, a useful idiot.
Look, Joe, I got pretty angry when you said, based on the Japanese war crimes trials, that the status of water boarding is “settled law,” and then I discovered that what the Japanese had been tried for was orders of magnitude beyond what we were doing. I don’t want to reopen that chapter, I just know not to take your word on legal matters without corroboration — and to be candid, I always felt that way anyway.
I used to enjoy jousting with opponents from all points of view a lot more than I do today. I think the issue is that I enjoyed it a lot more when my ideas were not so well-formed as they are today, and the ideas I heard challenged me to rethink things a lot more often. These days, it’s pretty rare that I hear a point of view that makes me want to rethink something I’ve believed (when it happens, it’s usually because I’ve gotten my facts wrong), because I’ve been examining my own thoughts pretty rigorously for a long time now. I don’t know if that’s good or bad; maybe I’m just getting old and crotchety.
You’re welcome here if you really want to be here, although I’m sure there are better conservative sites. And for what it’s worth, I know you’re not an idiot. I value your knowledge of philosophers and philosophies, and welcome corrections to my understanding of them.
Comment by Phil
Not that you don’t know that, but you seem pretty angry with him right now.
Nah, just disappointed. I always feel compassion when guys fall like that, ’cause I’ve been in a somewhat similar position. From my own experience with this sort of situation, I know that the person on the hot seat actually needs the pain; it’s corrective. I go out of my way to remember that the family is hurting more, and doesn’t deserve the pain.
Comment by suek
>> If you can’t honor your marriage vows, how can you expect voters to trust you to honor your damned oath of office?>>
While I appreciate the sentiment, the temptations aren’t really the same. I don’t think you can equate them.
It might be more instructive to consider his willingness to (perhaps) desert his post to accommodate his personal passion, though.
He was gone for almost a week. Was he _really_ unreachable? If so, and if in fact he had not conveyed his authority as governor on someone, it was real dereliction of duty for personal matters. When you take on the responsibility of an office such as governor, you give up your right to that kind of action.
On the other hand, I have no faith in the press that we will ever learn whether he might have made some accommodations for contact or passing of authority. They enjoy skewering him way too much.
Comment by Phil
Suek –
It speaks to whether one takes oaths seriously or not. In our day, it’s common to consider oaths mere ceremony, but at one time they meant something. Some of us still think that what one swears, one should perform. It does mean something to me to know that a man considers his oath of office mere ceremony rather than binding declaration.
You are correct about the dereliction of duty, however.
Comment by Joseph W. Huster
Phil, I don’t understand your response.
First, I didn’t say or suggest that conservatives were “heartless bastards.” I don’t believe that and nothing I said can be construed to suggest that I do. I disagree with some – though not all – of the positions taken by social conservatives, but I don’t think they are heartless – just misguided.
Second, yes, I am providing another interpretation of the behavior of the critics of Sanford et al – albeit a far more reasonable interpretation than you provided.
Your interpretation requires us to believe that: (1) the moral views of social conservatives are correct; (2) that social conservative politicians support these positions because they truly believe in them – as opposed to supporting them for political convenience – even though many of these same leaders do not abide by them personally; (3) that people who publicly oppose socially conservative positions – and socially conservative politicians – truly know (in their hearts) that the social conservative moral positions are correct, but hate to be held moral accountable, and, therefore, (4) view the failure of morally upright but weak men such as Sanford et al as an opportunity to stifle calls to moral responsibility.
My interpretation requires me to believe: (1) that the people who say they disagree with social conservatives on moral issues really do disagree with them, (2) that they see the hypocritical misbehavior of a string of strident social conservative leaders as a political opportunity to accuse social conservative leaders of being disingenuous for not really believing the arguments they make, and (3) that they are taking advantage of that opportunity.
I think my explanation rests on far more plausible premises than yours.
By the way, I don’t doubt that Mark Sanford actually believes in the sanctity of marriage. And I agree with you that Sanford’s sin is evidence of nothing more than humanness. But that’s just it. Sanford and other social conservatives show little sympathy for the circumstances of gays and others when they advocate their moral/political positions. That’s what makes him and others, like Newt Gingrich and Ted haggard, big fat targets. If you’re going to take the high ground, you’ve got meet high expectations. Sanford’s failure is unfortunate for the social conservative true believers and their causes, but pointing out the disingenuous of your political opponents in pursuit of political goals is hardly something to scream about. And that’s all this is, as far as I can tell.
Third, you missed what I was saying about your complaint that opponents of social conservatives are citing the hypocrisy of the leaders as grounds for dismissing anything social conservatives say. I agree that it is a mistake to dismiss people’s arguments because one thinks the arguments are coming from dishonest or disingenuous people.
My point was that your complaint about the opponents of social conservatism calling for its advocates to be ignored was ironic, given that you have explicitly endorsed the dismissal of leftist arguments for the very same reasons. As I’ve indicated previously, I agree with your complaint – but I recommend that you take it to heart when you debate people you disagree with.
As for your evidence that conservatives behave better than liberals, we’re going to need more evidence than a survey about paying taxes, particularly when “liberals” are defined as people who “reject the idea of absolute truth.” As I’ve said before, “absolute” contributes nothing to the notion of truth, and liberals in no way reject the idea of truth. There are also a wide array moral issues to be evaluated. You know better than to conclude that conservatives behave more morally than liberals based on this kind of evidence.
Anyway, my lunch is over and I’ve got law to practice.
Have a good weekend.
Joe
Comment by Joseph W. Huster
“These days, it’s pretty rare that I hear a point of view that makes me want to rethink something I’ve believed (when it happens, it’s usually because I’ve gotten my facts wrong), because I’ve been examining my own thoughts pretty rigorously for a long time now.”
Hey Darkhorse, if you ever hear me say anything like this, I’ll buy you a plane ticket to the islands so you can come over here and kick me in the ass!
Phil, how many smart informed people do you know who disagree with you? You need to find some and hang around with them. You may not change your views, but you’ll see that issues are often far more complicated than you think.
Joe
Comment by Phil
Phil, how many smart informed people do you know who disagree with you? You need to find some and hang around with them. You may not change your views, but you’ll see that issues are often far more complicated than you think.
Hmmm… I’ve been called idiotic, mindless, paranoid, Nazi-like, bigoted, and homophobic, and recently an atheist told me I was doing a pathetic job of explaining Christianity, but I don’t think I’ve recently been accused of failing to see the nuances of issues. That’s new.
On the other hand, if you’re offering me that airline ticket, I just might take you up on it. I’ve never seen the islands, and given the current administration and Congress, I’d probably find it cathartic to hand out a good ass-kicking to a progressive.
Joe, these days, everybody in my intellectual life is online. I meet smart, informed people every time I read Gateway Pundit, HotAir, PowerLine, The Moderate Voice, Politico, HuffingtonPost, TPM, The Atlantic, and Salon.com. I read that spread of sources for the same reason you come here — I need to know what the best of all sides are thinking. When I say I don’t hear many opinions that make me rethink my position these days, it’s not because I’m not looking for them.
I’ll answer your objections tomorrow. I’m going to enjoy the library and a movie with my lovely wife.
Just kidding about the ass-kicking, of course.
Comment by darkhorse
Phil said:
“Just kidding about the ass-kicking, of course.”
Crap! When I put two bugs in a bottle and shake them, I want ACTION, man!
Just kidding. Phil, when you made the statement Joe quoted, I blew cheerios on my screen…not because I know it isn’t true, and not because most people don’t think that about themselves, but because not many people have the pure cajones to come right out and say it.
It must be hard to walk that way : )
Comment by darkhorse
Well, now that it’s all coming out that Sanford basically just lives a life of unfaithfulness all the time, that does mean at least ONE thing…at least SANFORD should shut up.
Jesus was most impatient with one group…the hypocrites.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
