The argument always goes like this: If a prominent conservative (or someone near him) violates a moral law, his hypocrisy should be taken as proof that the moral law is bunkum, and ought to be dismantled; and if the prominent conservative doesn't agree than he's just showing the depth of his hypocrisy. Thus, if a Republican commits adultery he should support gay marriage; if Rush Limbaugh abuses prescription drugs he should have to support drug legalization, if Sarah Palin's daughter has a child out of wedlock then Sarah should have to support government-funded birth control, etc.
The problem with this argument is that it fails to understand what conservatives, particularly Christian ones, believe about sin--and it illustrates what social liberals and people who like to add a hissing "ists" to the end of the word Christian completely fail to grasp.
In a way, these social liberals (that is, those who are liberal on social issues) are all, no matter what religion they may practice, spiritually a bunch of frustrated Calvinists (or at least, the popular conception of a Calvinist). People are either good, or bad. If Christian, they are either saved, or damned. If saved, then they commit no sin and live lives of shining purity and virtue; if damned, they end up in Argentina with a mistress and a flimsy excuse. Since most people's behavior shows that they're clearly not saved, then there's no reason to expect any sort of morality, and certainly no reason to have any public standards of morality, such as might reasonably be expected by marriage laws or the like.
But most Christians don't view things this way. As a Catholic, for instance, I can say that the possibility of sin occurring at a regular basis even in the life of someone sincerely trying to follow Christ is one reason why the Sacrament of Reconciliation makes so much sense. Even when we're doing our best to live according to Christian principles of morality and virtue, we can and do fall. If we smugly think that there's some sin or other we would never commit--well, I think of my former pastor, who would say things like "How do you know you'd never commit adultery? Has anybody ever asked you to?"
Believing that we're somehow above sin is a kind of presumption, one that can be managed with frequent sacramental Confession, sincere examinations of conscience, and a close relationship with Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. It's not true that good Christians don't sin--the difference for a Christian is that he's supposed to try to avoid sin, and to sincerely repent of it should he fall into it.
The moral laws are not less important because Christians sin--if anything, they're more important because we do.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The Best Reaction To Mark Sanford's News...
...that I've seen comes from And Sometimes Tea:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Good find, well written. My own clumsy attempt pales by comparison.
But hey, just because my writing is muddy, doesn't mean that clarity has to go, right? ;-)
The biggest problem I have with Sanford's action is not so much that he cheated on his wife, although that is certainly a bad thing. (I have heard that the reason for his trip to Argentina was actually to BREAK UP with the other woman because his wife had given him an ultimatum; but I could be wrong.)
No, the biggest problem I have is the fact that he disappeared for several days without telling ANYONE -- not his wife, not his lieutenant governor, not his aides or his security detail -- where he was, or how he could be reached, and without making any provisions for emergency decision making in his absence. That constitutes a serious dereliction of his duty as governor.
What if there had been a tornado, riot, earthquake, or some other disaster in South Carolina that necessitated calling out the National Guard or declaring a state of emergency? Not being able to reach the governor at a time like that, and not knowing for sure who is in charge, could be a matter of life and death.
At the very least, he could have told a trusted aide where he could be reached, or checked in with him or her once or twice a day to make sure everything was OK back home. Or he could, if S.C. law allowed this, have turned over some or all of his powers to the lieutenant governor temporarily. (I've heard that some states, including Illinois, used to have laws automatically placing the lieutenant governor, or whomever was next in the line of succession, in charge ANY time the governor left the state.)
I
It is clear that most people don't understand Calvinism at all. There are not good and bad people. Everyone, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, is evil and incapable of pleasing God. The Bible says that without faith it is impossible to please God. People are also entirely damned apart from faith and the saving work of Christ. Also, according to Christ, in his sermon on the mount, everyone has already committed adultery at some point in their life. It is easy to believe oneself righteous if you believe that thoughts are not as bad as actions. God teaches that sin comes from the heart.
That being said, leaders should be held to higher standards and while Sanford can receive forgiveness from his Lord and maybe, at some point, his family. He should step down as governor. It is hypocritical for conservatives to not push for him stepping down when Bill Clinton's adultery was so much at the forefront of why he shouldn't be president.
It is hypocritical for conservatives to not push for him stepping down when Bill Clinton's adultery was so much at the forefront of why he shouldn't be president.
Calls for Clinton to step down and his impeachment were, actually, because he lied about the affair under oath. Committed perjury, which would land you or I in jail.
As for Sanford, he should resign. Not because of the affair, but because in his drive to commit adultery, he didn't even have the common sense to say to someone, "Hey, I'm getting away for a while. I'll be out of the country" so South Carolina could function in the event of an emergency.
Amy-
You didn't read my post carefully enough. I was referring to Bill Clinton's adultery as governor of Arkansas and conservatives' view that he should not be president because of his moral character.
You know, Democrats never have this kind of discussion when one of theirs goes astray.
Paul: You know, Democrats never have this kind of discussion when one of theirs goes astray.
Ori: I suspect they will if the politician in question displayed a racist attitude or opposed abortion. They might not see adultery as going astray, in much the same way you might not see speeding as going astray.
Ori has it sorta right. The reason Democrats don't typically have this kind of discussion when a Democrat goes astray is because Democrats haven't built their entire platform/philosophy around "family values."
I'm not saying that perjoratively or trying to suggest hypocrisy; more of an observation -- Republicans have run on this issue; so, when an event like this happens, it's natural for Republicans to have more discussions about it than Democrats would.
Not Crankycon, do you know any examples of Democrats who violated parts of the Democratic platform/philosophy, and how the rest of the party reacted to them?
You know, I can't think of anyone running on the issue of marital fidelity for any office, on either the pro or con side.
The perception that many of us are left to, however, is that Democrats don't criticize their own when they do these things because Democrats don't have a moral code anyway.
Paul: The perception that many of us are left to, however, is that Democrats don't criticize their own when they do these things because Democrats don't have a moral code anyway.
Ori: This lacks charity. If I can leave my stuff in my cubicle, and expect it be there when I come back, then my coworkers obviously have a moral code against stealing. And most of them are socially Liberal.
Are you sure, Ori? Maybe they're just risk-averse.
The risk is negligible. When you work with people for years, you get to know them - they really do have a moral code.
Having a moral code does not mean it is right, but it is there.
The perception is that when Democrats make the errors in judgment that Gov. Sanford or Senator Bob Packwood or Congressman Mark Foley made, that it just does not matter. Senator Kennedy survived Chappaquiddick. Congressman Frank survived the gay prostitution ring running from inside his house scandal, and Governor Clinton successfully ran for president and served two terms even after revelations of his marital infidelity surfaced prior to his election to the oval office. Why? Popularity. The rank and file members of the Democratic party rarely toss out a favored politician. How else do you explain these men surviving in office for so long? The democratic constituency just does not care about moral codes where favored politicians are concerned. I am certain that many democrats dislike prostitution and would never purchase those services themselves, but as long as Congressman Frank brings home the pork to his district, or casts the appropriate votes on key issues, morals be damned.
I am a liberal and here is my two cents, for what it is worth, which I am guessing is less than two cents in most of your eyes...but here goes.
I certainly do not think that Governor Sanford should leave office or be persecuted for having an affair. That is purely private and really has no bearing on his actions as Governor. The bigger issue was whether the state was in jeopardy because no one knew where he was. I would have respected him more if he told the Lieutenant Governor that he was going to Argentina for a quickie. At least then he would be reachable. I think Arby has it right, as long as our politicians bring home the bacon, so to speak, then I don't care what they do in private. But I must confess, I do derive some pleasure when it is a Republican who preaches morals and family values who gets busted. Remove them from office??? No, but it is enjoyable to watch them squirm.
Jake, your honesty is refreshing, but I suspect that most Democrats enjoy watching Republicans squirm through a scandal such as the Governor Sanford affair even if they did not preach morals and family values. It has become moral guilt by association. I am curious, (if you're willing to take this one step further) in your eyes, is there any connection between a politician's personal choices and their public choices? Is a man who violates his marriage vows trustworthy when it comes to his political oath of office? Is there anything that makes a man unworthy of holding public office?
Arby, it seems to me that plenty of Democrats have gotten caught up in career-ending sex scandals. They include former NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer, former NJ Gov. James McGreevy, former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, presidential candidates John Edwards and Gary Hart, and Congressmen Gary Condit of California and Wayne Hays of Ohio.
Democratic Congressman Wilbur Mills of Arkansas did manage to get reelected in 1974 after HIS escapade with an Argentinian (stripper Fanne Fox), but resigned shortly afterward upon admitting he also had a serious drinking problem.
In many of these cases the issue was not so much the affair itself as related issues involving violations of state or federal law or misuse of public funds.
Democrats also have quite a track record for career-ending financial, taxation, and corruption scandals. A by no means exhaustive list includes governors Rod Blagojevich and Otto Kerner (Ill.), John Rowland (Conn.), Jim Guy Tucker (Ark., caught up in the Whitewater scandal), and Ray Blanton (Tenn., booted from office early in 1979 for selling pardons to convicts).
Democratic Congressmen brought down by corruption scandals include Daniel Rostenkowski and Mel Reynolds (Ill.), William Jefferson (La.), Robert Toricelli (NJ), James Traficant (Ohio), and John Jenrette (SC, one of half a dozen congressmen busted in the 1980 Abscam investigation).
As for whether a man or woman who violates his or her marriage vows is untrustworthy when it comes to their oath of office, I'd say, that depends on the nature, circumstances, and frequency of the offense.
A one-night stand or brief affair that occurred in the distant past and has not been repeated is obviously of less concern than repeated and/or ongoing relationships that lead the officeholder to neglect or violate his/her oath of office in more obvious fashion (coverups, misuse of public funds, security breaches, nepotism).
If it is a sexual scandal within the Democratic party, the Democrats don't care. However, they have not treated Joe Lieberman (is it one or two n's?) very well. Democrats hate it when you stray from the party line or think independently. Lieberman's support of the war isolated him during the Bush years.
Paul said, "You know, I can't think of anyone running on the issue of marital fidelity for any office, on either the pro or con side."
I would say that Alan Keyes has, at the very least, run on an extremely pro-family, pro-fatherhood platform, especially when discussing black Americans.
Arby
You are probably correct, it is more guilt by association. Republicans preach family values and project as holier than thou, so if any is busted sneaking some on the side than I probably associate them with that attitude. That being said, to answer your second question, no, I really don't equate public and private lives of politicians. If a governor or senator is honest, works hard for his district or state, and doesn't abuse his power than I could care less if he or she sleeps with every person in Washington behind his or her spouses back. If they choose to steal or abuse power to achieve their extracurricular activities, than a line has been crossed.
Post a Comment