The Moral Meter
John LeBoutillier
Monday, March 5, 2007
OK. Let us try a new way to analyze the 2008 presidential campaign: through a Moral Meter. First, let's look at the country. How would you rate the United states on a Moral Meter? Low, high or in the middle?
Personally, I'd rate it this way: a majority of people are upset over some aspect of the declining moral atmosphere in our country. But, when it comes to politics, the overwhelming majority of people believe - correctly - that our elected and appointed officials are so `low' that it is hopeless to try to make it better. In other words, the people no longer even expect anything better than the absolute lowest standards. Thus lying about oral sex or non-existent WMDs or the true cost of the prescription drug program no longer hurts that candidate's credibility; people seem to discount lying - figuring "they all do it" - and they accept it.They may not like it, but they accept it.
How sad.
Knowing this, voters don't care when Hillary Clinton lies about her "cattle futures" $100,000 windfall or her scores of other lies. Nor do they care about Mitt Romney's lies about his positions 10 years ago or his lie about his residency when he took over the Salt Lake City Olympics. And they don't care about Rudy Giuliani's constant womanizing and philandering.
Conclusion: in American election politics, there is little expectation of any morality in any candidates. Or, in another way to look at it, a lack of morality will not hurt a candidate.
OK. That means the least moral candidate may very well win. In the GOP, that is Giuliani. Thrice married, an inveterate womanizer, surrounded by sleazy people, a fraud when he tries to glom onto the Reagan tradition (he was a McGovernite anti-war protestor in the 1970s and a registered Democrat when Ronald Reagan was elected and only switched in order to get a job in the Reagan Justice Department), it is highly possible this most amoral man will become the nominee of a political party that claims to be moral.
And it is also possible that he will be elected president in a country which has lost its moral compass.
Many view Giuliani as "tough" (he is) and "determined" (he is) and will "stand up for us" (he might).
But those qualities are useless without a moral basis from which to operate. Toughness without good judgement is a prescription for trouble; determination without a sense of history and balance is a road-map for bad decisions.
Giuliani is - without a doubt - the most amoral candidate running for president in the GOP in 2008.
His entire life - from his Mafia father - through his private and public life show a pattern of "Do anything to get what you want - no matter how you do it or who you hurt."
No need to go over his past marriages, his social positions so at odds with the GOP he now courts or his meanness and arrogance; that will all be played out over the next few months. And John McCain - another totally amoral liar (funny how these two lead in the polls, isn't it? Doesn't that prove this point?) - will now, in his desperation, take off his gloves and try to savage Rudy to knock him down in the polls.
But the GOP has proven itself now to also be a Moral Wasteland - no longer aware of its purpose. They tolerate President Bush's lies and condemn the Democrats' lies. How does that figure?
How about some outrage over our own failures instead of a knee-jerk defense of every lie and misleading statement?
Evangelical `leaders' are cropping up all over the nation supporting Giuliani - and saying things like, "Well, I am supporting him because he can win."
So that is the standard: winning - not principle - is now the gold standard even of the self-proclaimed moral leaders!
On the Democratic side, Bill and Hillary Clinton are by far the most amoral politicians we have ever seen. And the mainstream - i.e., also amoral - media has allowed them to get away with it for two decades.
So, using this Moral Meter, it isn't too hard to believe that the 2008 race might be between Giuliani and Hillary - both from New York (probably viewed by most American as the most amoral (blue) state).
What a wonderful choice, eh?
No wonder so many people are so depressed over the present course of our once-great country.
And oh how we need a new candidate to enter this race - and change the whole dialogue.
Monday, March 5, 2007
OK. Let us try a new way to analyze the 2008 presidential campaign: through a Moral Meter. First, let's look at the country. How would you rate the United states on a Moral Meter? Low, high or in the middle?
Personally, I'd rate it this way: a majority of people are upset over some aspect of the declining moral atmosphere in our country. But, when it comes to politics, the overwhelming majority of people believe - correctly - that our elected and appointed officials are so `low' that it is hopeless to try to make it better. In other words, the people no longer even expect anything better than the absolute lowest standards. Thus lying about oral sex or non-existent WMDs or the true cost of the prescription drug program no longer hurts that candidate's credibility; people seem to discount lying - figuring "they all do it" - and they accept it.They may not like it, but they accept it.
How sad.
Knowing this, voters don't care when Hillary Clinton lies about her "cattle futures" $100,000 windfall or her scores of other lies. Nor do they care about Mitt Romney's lies about his positions 10 years ago or his lie about his residency when he took over the Salt Lake City Olympics. And they don't care about Rudy Giuliani's constant womanizing and philandering.
Conclusion: in American election politics, there is little expectation of any morality in any candidates. Or, in another way to look at it, a lack of morality will not hurt a candidate.
OK. That means the least moral candidate may very well win. In the GOP, that is Giuliani. Thrice married, an inveterate womanizer, surrounded by sleazy people, a fraud when he tries to glom onto the Reagan tradition (he was a McGovernite anti-war protestor in the 1970s and a registered Democrat when Ronald Reagan was elected and only switched in order to get a job in the Reagan Justice Department), it is highly possible this most amoral man will become the nominee of a political party that claims to be moral.
And it is also possible that he will be elected president in a country which has lost its moral compass.
Many view Giuliani as "tough" (he is) and "determined" (he is) and will "stand up for us" (he might).
But those qualities are useless without a moral basis from which to operate. Toughness without good judgement is a prescription for trouble; determination without a sense of history and balance is a road-map for bad decisions.
Giuliani is - without a doubt - the most amoral candidate running for president in the GOP in 2008.
His entire life - from his Mafia father - through his private and public life show a pattern of "Do anything to get what you want - no matter how you do it or who you hurt."
No need to go over his past marriages, his social positions so at odds with the GOP he now courts or his meanness and arrogance; that will all be played out over the next few months. And John McCain - another totally amoral liar (funny how these two lead in the polls, isn't it? Doesn't that prove this point?) - will now, in his desperation, take off his gloves and try to savage Rudy to knock him down in the polls.
But the GOP has proven itself now to also be a Moral Wasteland - no longer aware of its purpose. They tolerate President Bush's lies and condemn the Democrats' lies. How does that figure?
How about some outrage over our own failures instead of a knee-jerk defense of every lie and misleading statement?
Evangelical `leaders' are cropping up all over the nation supporting Giuliani - and saying things like, "Well, I am supporting him because he can win."
So that is the standard: winning - not principle - is now the gold standard even of the self-proclaimed moral leaders!
On the Democratic side, Bill and Hillary Clinton are by far the most amoral politicians we have ever seen. And the mainstream - i.e., also amoral - media has allowed them to get away with it for two decades.
So, using this Moral Meter, it isn't too hard to believe that the 2008 race might be between Giuliani and Hillary - both from New York (probably viewed by most American as the most amoral (blue) state).
What a wonderful choice, eh?
No wonder so many people are so depressed over the present course of our once-great country.
And oh how we need a new candidate to enter this race - and change the whole dialogue.
0
-
(this sounds like it's more at home in the politics forum) 0 -
yet still, I cant disagree with it 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
2 comments