Social conservatives have been pushing a moral agenda. But now so many of them have been caught in moral failures, they are getting an immoral reputation, to the point that other Republicans don’t want to be associated with them or their issues. That is the main point of an article in the conservative Washington Times with the headline Social conservatives fall from moral high ground: Republicans retreat from values claims:
Social conservatives, the once-powerful force that focused the Republican agenda on moral virtue and family values, have suffered a diminished brand on the national political landscape as a steady stream of their icons have fallen prey to the vices they once preached against.
Extramarital affairs, gambling, alcohol abuse, prostitution and sexual pursuit of minors have taken a toll on the GOP. . . .
Mr. Perkins said distancing itself from its family-values platform in order to insulate itself from charges of hypocrisy is a bigger threat to the Republican Party.
He said Republicans have been moving in that direction since former Rep. Mark Foley, Florida Republican, resigned from office in 2006 amid allegations he sent sexually explicit e-mails and instant messages to underage male congressional pages.
“I think they have tried to solve the issue by running from it,” Mr. Perkins said. “They don’t want to talk about moral values.”
Notice what is happening: The transgressions are not underscoring the importance of adhering to moral behavior; they are making politicians disassociate themselves from saying anything about morality, lest they someday transgress. And anyone raising moral issues is going to be associated with the malefactors. See how that works.
Now that social conservatives no longer have the moral high ground–a region currently occupied by gay marriage activists–what now?
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
They will never understand that moral authority is never predicated on one’s adherence to the moral law; it finds its basis in God’s holy will and law. What some GOP folks forget is that our works, as St. Paul points out, will also have the benefit of serving our neighbours and winning them for Christ. But II Samuel 10, and David’s absolution of adultery and murder and his continued moral authority as king, is anathema to postmoderns. Some libertarians despise the whole concept of vicarious obedience through Christ and they only see anti-nomianism.
CL
This is further evidence of a political party in its death throes than any great shift. The Republican party has no clue as to what it stands for or why it exists.
The moral hypocrisy is no different on the left with “green” politicians driving (uh, excuse me, riding in) gas guzzling limos, flying private jets, and living in sprawling, energy-inefficient mansions while preaching to masses that we need to conserve energy and reduce our carbon footprint.
If there are true moral values that are of value to society, then they will always come up in public discourse. Episodes like this might also serve to objectify our discourse (though I wouldn’t hold my breath) since truth remains truth even when it is spoken by a liar. “Tu quoque” is a fallacy, remember.
Republican social conservatives continue to have no reason to back down on moral issues that intersect with public policy , including abortion, Homosexual marriage, and stem-cell research. They, also, as with Foley, Craig, and apparently mow Sanford, make clear their disapproval of moral failure. Compare that with, say Barney Frank, who gets a free pass from his colleagues on moral issues.
I quite disagree with Dr. Veith’s assertion that gay activists occupy the high moral ground with their issues. In fact by accusing principled orthodox Christians of being homophobic bigots, gay activists they occupy nasty, bigoted low ground
There is quite a difference between the Christian notion of lauding moral values and the non-Christian notion of paying lip-service to moral values in order to make yourself look better than someone else.
One is done in humility, insisting on the standards God has set, yet aware that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God — with the understanding that God’s grace is just as important.
The other is done in arrogance, holding one’s self up to look better, less sinful, than someone else. This ultimately betrays an ideology of works-righteousness, as no one who truly comprehended his own sinfulness would consider himself better than a fellow sinner.
I would submit that the GOP has done more of the latter, and is being burned by it. And that is not surprising, because it turns out that they were full of people every bit as sinful as the Democratic Party.
I haven’t heard much of the humble version (from either party, of course), because I haven’t heard much about grace and forgiveness of sins through Jesus from any political party.
tODD, I think your context is wrong. In politics, the issue isn’t personal moral standards, it’s public policy. Recently, conservatives have been fighting a defensive battle against extreme efforts to change public policy in a manner which, to put it charitably, does not promote Biblical standards and is designed to discredit and devalue those standards. These public policy changes include mandates that force observent Christians to do things that are in opposition to their personal religious beliefs. What I see in the public square are arguments made in support of moral standards, not personal breast beating about how self-righteous is the person making the argument. Of course, there are going to always be some, on both sides, that make things personal. But, really, maybe you can provide some examples, in context, to support the statement: “The other is done in arrogance, holding one’s self up to look better, less sinful, than someone else. This ultimately betrays an ideology of works-righteousness, as no one who truly comprehended his own sinfulness would consider himself better than a fellow sinner. I would submit that the GOP has done more of the latter, and is being burned by it.”
Because I just don’t see that.
Don (@5), perhaps you’re too young to remember the latter years of the Clinton administration? I seem to remember that, during that time, there was some sort of scandal — I can’t remember what it was about now — and a lot of talk from one party about how much character mattered. In the election after that, there was a lot of talk from that same party of restoring dignity to the White House.
But that was a long time ago. You may not recall it.
tODD, how does that square up with your original statement? Are you saying that the purpose of the impeachment was to make Republican individuals look good compared to Democrats? Or that Democrats haven’t done similar things to Republicans (since your comment was singularly directed only to Republicans)? Or that it is inappropriate to speak up against the actions or character of a president that engages in sexual relations in the Oval Office with a young female employee (surprising that NOW never really spoke up against that, don’t you think?), multiple times, and then committed perjury to avoid admitting his actions? Is that what you meant by your original statement? That Republicans should have just let all that slide by, so as not to appear self righteous?
I’m not sure what the answer to this is. Eisenhower was banging his female jeep driver during WWII. I don’t recall anyone insisting that we turn D-Day over to somebody else, or that he was unfit to be president afterwards. JFK elevated adultry almost to an art form, and we still rhapsodize about his presidency. Back then, the media swept this kind of thing under the rug.
In my state, Wisconsin, it was a pretty open secret that our last 4 term Republican governor had a mistress (his wife was almost never in the capitol). He not only didn’t resign, he ended up with a cabinet post in the Bush administration.
Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, was famously straight laced. But he was a terrible president.
Like I say, I’m not sure how to react to all this.
The Pres. Clinton scandal had mostly to do with his perjury in court and with the public regarding his affair with Lewinsky. His sexual looseness was secondary, though not trivial. On balance his character proved to be rather lacking.
Pres. Bush, however one views his policies, proved to have exemplary character. Probably the best example of his character is his pressing on with the surge and change of Iraq military strategy in the face of withering criticism from the public and the military/diplomatic chiefs, most probably winning the war in Iraq.
Underneath it all the Democrats tend to favor abortion, homosexual marriage, stem-cell research and other liberal pieties, while the Republicans social conservatives tend to hold the line on issues of traditional morality. The fact that some Republicans have erred morally doesn’t obviate any of this.
This is what you get, I guess, when we encourage politicians to emphasize the Law without emphasizing the Gospel. Pretty sad.
“Democrats tend to favor abortion, homosexual marriage, stem-cell research and other liberal pieties”
What happens when a liberal, or a Democrat if you will, “sins” against the above favored pieties?
Don (@7), maybe you missed it, but my comment “was singularly directed only to Republicans” because that’s the topic under discussion here.
Anyhow, please pick a side: Is it that (@5) “In politics, the issue isn’t personal moral standards, it’s public policy”? Or is it, as you appear to argue (@7), appropriate “to speak up against the actions or character of a president that engages in sexual relations in the Oval Office with a young female employee”?
In other words, Don (@7), what conflict do you see in my two previous comments?
tODD: Fine. So if the topic comes up concerning the “arrogance” and “works-righteousness” of Democrats, we can be assured that you will jump in with equal gusto.
As to your comment to “pick a side”, I don’t understand. I was merely responding to the “example” you chose. You seemed to be saying that Republicans should not speak up against corruption in public office, for fear of being perceived as “arrogant”. I disagree.
Ryan What happens when a liberal, or a Democrat if you will, “sins” against the above favored pieties?
Sen. Lieberman’s traducing and exile would be a good example of what happens when a Democrat sins against such issues as the war in Iraq and charter schools. Former Dem, Gov. Casey of Pa., who opposed the abortion phalanx, was not allowed to speak at a Democratic convention in his own state.
A salutary book to read on all of this is Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.
Don (@14), I try to offer opinions that I do not believe have been given. Are you worried that not enough folks here will bludgeon the Democrats should that topic arise? Anyhow, is your argument that Democrats have also “been pushing a moral agenda” akin to the one Veith notes for “social conservatives”? (Note: I’m not merely asking if they have an agenda. Of course they do.)
You then say that I “seemed to be saying that Republicans should not speak up against corruption in public office”. Man, I can’t believe you ever accused me of making up strawmen. Really.
I’m not proscribing speaking out against anything wrong, much less “corruption in public office”. I’m saying that, if one is going to do it, one had better do it in humility, aware that he himself is a sinner — as the Republicans have more than proved in recent days — and with an eye on grace. If you think that “humility” and “grace” are two words that characterize the Republicans’ reactions to the Clinton sex scandal, then we simply do not live in the same dimension.
And, yes, of course, there was a perjury/corruption aspect to the scandal. But please, let’s not pretend that every comment from Republicans and right-wingers was solely concerned with that aspect of the whole scandal. Much was said about the sexual aspect. Do you really not remember that, Don? Do you not remember Bush’s promise to restore honor and dignity to the White House, Don? What about all that “character counts” talk, Don? Was all that solely about perjury, now?
tODD @ 16:
Oh, OK. So, presumably, when you happen upon a blog that leans left of center you offer conservative commentary. Very balanced of you.
Your “example” was a snide comment that I must not remember the Lewinski scandal. So, I thought you were talking about impeachment. If you were merely averring that certain Republicans were happy about the situation, and made inappropriate comments, I agree. So do Democrats when Republicans get into trouble. That’s politics, and it will always be that way on this fallen world. But that hardly disqualifies Republicans from pursuing a moral agenda, nor should it tar Republicans, in particular, as being “arrogant” or engaged in “works righteousness”, any more than it would tar Democrats who were gleeful about Nixon, Sanford, etc.
kerner: “Eisenhower was banging his female jeep driver during WWII.”
Reliable substantiation for this gossip, please?
It is not in Kay Summersby’s 1948 book, Eisenhower Was My Boss. Summersby’s 1975 deathbed (and ghost-written) autobiography, Past Forgetting: My Love Affair with Dwight D. Eisenhower (published after her death) noted only two failed attempts, one of which was after VE day, and even those accounts have been questioned by others who worked with Eisenhower at the time.
Don (@17), you have no idea what I say on other blogs. Do you have a problem with my commenting here? Take it up with Veith. Or get a thicker skin.
“If you were merely averring that certain Republicans were happy about the situation, and made inappropriate comments, I agree.” Okay, I think you finally get it.
“So do Democrats.” Don, did you ever decry me for Bush-did-it-too-ism? Why?
“That’s politics.” Yes, well, it’s also legalism, and those who once found joy at others’ failings have found themselves run through by the sword they once so glibly wielded. You seem to think the fact that Democrats did it too precludes labeling it “works righteousness”, which makes no sense at all. It’s sinful, Don — no matter which party does it. Do you see everything through a political lens like this?
Carl is right to question Kerner’s crude remark about Eisenhower. Gill Troy, a respected McGill historian, scotches the myth of Eisenhower’s affair in an article, With Ike, Rumors Were Steamier Than Facts in which he writes:
Some reporters have blithely included Gen. Eisenhower on their list, citing a wartime affair with his driver, Kay Summersby. In fact, the evidence has always been murky and many historians now doubt that Eisenhower and Summersby had a sexual relationship.
tODD @ 19: “Get a thicker skin”? What does that mean? I made a light hearted comment about your assertion that you try to offer opinions that haven’t been given, and this blog already has plenty of conservative opinions. I don’t have a problem with that. I just think, besides your desire for balance, your comments might also have just a smidge to do with your world view.
You are really getting bogged down in “me tooism”. Of course some of what politicians do is sin. We are all humans, and we all do that. Let’s focus. My original point was only that Republicans shouldn’t have to abandon their moral platform because some Republicans are imperfect. I don’t find Republicans to be more arrogant or “works righteousness” oriented than Democrats. Both parties are full of sinners, no one is disputing that.
tODD @ 16: You asked “Anyhow, is your argument that Democrats have also “been pushing a moral agenda” akin to the one Veith notes for “social conservatives”? (Note: I’m not merely asking if they have an agenda. Of course they do.)”. The answer is “ABSOLUTELY”.
This agenda is cloaked as “equal rights”. Those who disagree are labeled in uncomplementary ways. Those with moral or religious convictions against these rights are forced to do things that violate their convictions.
tODD @ 16 (cont’d) — if you refuse to do those things, you can be forced to give up your livelihood. It’s hard to imagine a more arrogant or works righteous agenda than that.
Will there be PAYBACK for the murder of Dr. Tiller?
Will there be COUNTERTERROR against right-to-lifers?
Why have Paul Hill’s wife and kids NEVER spoken up against terror?
WHERE do they go to church?
Check out a new abortion blog, unlike any other! AICH TEE TEE PEA://operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com
“Now that social conservatives no longer have the moral high ground–a region currently occupied by gay marriage activists–what now? ”
they never had the moral highground that they staked out. that was their problem . good they are backing off. they used the word “they” when talking about the immoral (homosexuals for example) . they should have consistently used the word “us”.
we are all immoral. some of us are actually a-moral but even jp sarte had a tough time consistently pulling THAT one off because the law IS written in one´s heart is it not^?
the problem is those politicians who feel that their political calling includes being jeremiah. it does not include that charter. best to show morality in a public office of pastor politician judge whatever by example. by the way, obama has not done so badly thus far in his personal life. lets pray seriously for him and his family that this continues… it is good for all of us.
The oath of every elected official is to “defend the constitution” from enemies within and without.
Beyond that their charter and duties is defined by each state´s constitutions and statutes.
I suspect that there is nothing in any of those documents that require those elected officials to make judgements on the quality of the morality of the individuals in their own or the opposite parties.
They seem to have enough trouble doing what God has put them in power to do. why do they feel the need to reach for more things to do?