e. magill's Intrigue |
| Back |
Bloodthirsty for Hypocrites: The Problem with Moral RelativismFormer Education Secretary and Drug Czar Bill Bennett announced on Monday that he was quitting gambling [1]. Within nanoseconds, liberal thinkers and watchdogs began salivating with joy. Bennett literally wrote the book on right-wing morality, and now he is being slaughtered in the political limelight by people who claim to be offended but can’t stop grinning.Bennett is certainly not the first conservative to be offered up to the chopping block. Over the last year, we’ve also been given a silver platter with Trent Lott’s head on it, not to mention the shock and horror with which we were supposed to react to Senator Rick Santorum’s comments about homosexuality. To be honest, of all the Republicans who’re being crucified in the media, Bennett is the first one of recent history for whom I feel no sympathy. I cannot bring myself to defend this man, even though there are legitimate arguments to bring forth in his defense. Having disclaimed that, though, I will admit that the problem, as I see it, is not with Bennett, nor is it with Lott or Santorum. The problem is with those who attacked them. For starters, Al Gore blasted Trent Lott for associating himself with a racist, and yet Gore’s own father (along with 20 other Democratic senators and 6 Republican ones) opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Another one of Lott’s attackers, Jesse Jackson, is also joining in the attack on both Santorum and Bennett, accusing their actions and beliefs to be in conflict with the sacred morality with which the “reverend” clothes himself. Let’s not forget that, while he was consoling and praying for President Clinton during the publicity surrounding the Lewinsky affair, Jackson was busy fathering an illegitimate daughter [2]. If Bennett can be blasted for gambling while sticking firm to his moral code, then certainly Jackson, friend to the National Organization for Women and the man who said that the “long arm of justice reaches neither for the political left nor the political right, but for the moral center” [3], should be called to account for his own moral indiscretions. I feel the need to point out that, while gambling is not prohibited by the Ten Commandments that both men proclaim to believe in, adultery most clearly is (depending, of course, on what your definition of “is” is). Speaking of the National Organization of Women, can somebody explain to me how that organization can take a stance that all compassionate people should crucify Rick Santorum [5]? How is it compassionate to politically assassinate a man for his opinions (opinions that he happens to share with both the Catholic Church and the Supreme Court)? And how come so few people are willing to point out that the woman who conducted the now infamous interview with Rick Sanorum (and the woman who surreptitiously inserted the word “gay” into one of his statements when it didn’t belong there) is the wife of Jim Jordan, former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee official and campaign manager for none other than John Kerry [6]? Kerry, in addition to running for president under the “We Hate Republicans” banner, had a few angry and aggresive words to say about Trent Lott, along with many of his liberal colleagues. And let us not forget the honorable gentleman from West Virginia, Senator Robert Byrd, who, just this morning, when discussing the president’s speech from an aircraft carrier, said that he questions “the motives of a desk-bound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech” [7]. In response to that, I’d have to say that I question the motives of any desk-bound Senator who used to adorn himself with a white hooded sheet and recruit people into the Klu Klux Klan [8]. The unspoken argument is simple: the only people who should be judged are those who judge others (as long as they are Republican). The liberal attackers looked at Trent Lott’s statement and decreed that it was racist and judgemental towards blacks. Thus, Lott no longer had the right to speak about anything or hold a position of authority, because, in their eyes, he made the mistake of judging other people. They looked at Rick Santorum and decided that he was making a moral judgement about other people. He had no right to make such a judgement, and thus he was clearly in the moral wrong and needed to be judged for it. They look at Bill Bennett and they say that he has no right to make a moral equivocation about anything if they determine that he is hypocritical. It is immoral, they decide, for him to speak out for his view of morality. The attackers, high priests and priestesses of moral authority, cannot accept the possibility that anyone would disagree with them. They have boomed from their reighteous pedastals that nobody should judge another, unless of course that other is a racist, sexist, hypocrite, or even disagrees with their liberal and relativistic view of the world. You can't judge others without pointing the finger at yourself. And so I choose to judge them. Their argument is illogical and, ironically enough, hypocritical. If I do not have the right to judge a man for his race, sexual orientation, religion, or private actions, than how can I possibly have the right to judge a man for his beliefs? How can I possibly say that Trent Lott and Rick Santorum need to step down from their leadership positions because they spoke up for what they believed in, even if I happen to disagree with what they say? And, if I am not allowed to judge a man like Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, or sexual deviants around the world for what they do outside of public view, than how can I possibly judge Bill Bennett for his gambling problem? The First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not solely protect speech that is non-offensive. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is what allows me to say the following statement: “YOU ARE ALL FULL OF SHIT.” I judge them all. I hereby decree that the left is more morally self-reighteous than the right. I hereby decree that Rick Santorum is an idiot and that he is wrong, but I also decree that I don’t think he should resign his position because I think this. I hereby decree that Trent Lott said nothing wrong or racist. I hereby decree that those who denounced Lott’s murky implication were bloodthirsty lunatics. I hereby decree that Bill Bennett is a hypocrite for gambling and then sending tens of thousands to prison for marijuana possession. I hereby decree that Jesse Jackson is even more of a hypocrite than Bill Bennett. I hereby decree that all politicians are dirty, but that I’m okay with that. I hereby decree that politics is supposed to be about ideas, not personal attacks. These are my judgements. If you don’t like them, then go ahead and make your own; it’s a free country, after all. (This list does not represent the entirety of my research on this subject) -e. magill, 5/7/2003 |
| Copyright ©2003 e. magill. All rights reserved. |