Discussing Gov. Mark Sanford’s press conference, one of my co-workers suggested that maybe the time had come for the Republican Party to surrender its claim to represent family values.
Dinesh D’Souza put it in Letters to a Young Conservative- to paraphrase- Republicans accept that people aren’t perfect, and that even those who proclaim family values will fail (the reference, written in 2002, compares former President Clinton to then- Majority Leader Gingrich), but that the movement should not follow the failures of the imperfect beings who are family values proponents.
Instead, the fight must continue through its supporters’ failures. And yet when supporters of an issue keep failing and failing and then fail again, after a time one begins to wonder: maybe there’s a deeper problem here?
Yet I think there are three reasons rank-and-file Republicans should not give up the fight.
First: it really is true that strengthening families is vital to national economic prosperity. Stronger families enjoy higher incomes and depend less on government aid. Their children achieve more, are less likely to get into trouble with the law, and more likely to pass success onto children of their own.
Second: hypocrisy is by no means a Republican monopoly. Look at Democrats who send their children to private schools while opposing vouchers (one now resides in the Whte House) or who defend the earth while using megawatts of electricity to cool their mansions (one nearly made it to the White House in 2000).
Third: it is appallingly unjust to allow the sins of politicians to be used as a weapon against the beliefs of their voters.
For those who really believe in the family values movement, we must convince the rest of America through constant, unceasing examples of upstanding moral behavior, forgiveness for those who fall short, and ready reminders that it IS the conservative social movement that will help keep America great, not the low moral standards of the Democratic Party. A failed high standard is certainly better than a successful low moral standard.
11 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Jun 25, 2009 at 11:33 am
When you talk of hypocracy, you should always reflect on the consequences that one actor contends should be levelled on those who fail their moral example.
For example, I’ve never heard a politician claim that sending one’s children to whatever schools you can afford should be a bar to public office. I’ve never heard a politician claim that air conditioning a 10,000 square foot home/office or driving a gas guzzler indicates a moral flaw that should lead one to resign their office.
The problem with Republicans and morality is that for the current generation, they’re all having to face up to the one charge they could stick on Bill Clinton after the Whitewater Investigation flopped. Too many otherwise smart men rushed to the podium to proclaim that anyone caught with their pants down should give up their office.
Interestingly, after all they went through – Bill and Hillary are still together, and their daughter was raised with an intact family.
2 RaggedClown // Jun 25, 2009 at 11:51 am
Dustin,
I wonder if you have watched the bloggingheads.tv discussion between David Frum and Brink Lindsey (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/20342)? I wonder if you could comment on Lindsey’s observation that all the markers for traditional family values (marriage, divorce, under-age pregnancy, abortion etc) are *better* among the groups most likely to be liberal?
3 krove // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:07 pm
With all these “Family Values” Republicans falling left and right. It’s amusing to see that the family with the real value are living in the white house right now.
4 Cforchange // Jun 25, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Prosperity first and family values will follow. Job ceation on a mass scale will make the general population as a whole more civilized, more willing to invest in education and better conduct for themselves and their children. Education reveals that the only way to accumulate wealth is to get married and stay married.(politicians excluded)
The GOP’s hollow cry for family values appears to be pure BS. After the past 6 months I don’t know if I want to laugh or puke when I year the phrase family values and Republican in the same sentance.
Dustin you look pretty wet behind the ears. Age complicates life, age creates compassion and understanding for failure. I’ve failed little and I become very irritated at the GOP morality experts marching about on a judgemental mission.
The GOP needs to lead on issues of personal economics – that is the only way to get a majority following.
Just why is it necessary to make this a significant issue -haven’t you ever heard that actions speak louder than words???
5 balconesfault // Jun 25, 2009 at 2:43 pm
“Just why is it necessary to make this a significant issue -haven’t you ever heard that actions speak louder than words???”
If one takes the scientific viewpoint, one looks for cause and effect.
In this case, there seems to be a proposition that “high moral standards” being championed by a political party will lead to more ethical behavior than a “low moral standard” (or I would argue, a standard that personal morality is … well … personal).
Which if we take politicians as a representative sampling, seems to not be true at all. The party which most stridently bangs the drums of “high moral standards” does not seem to have any demonstrably better record on that count.
So the only value of the message, it seems, is to make the deliverers of the message feel better about themselves. Perhaps useful as a form of group therapy, but not useful from a policy perspective.
6 ottovbvs // Jun 25, 2009 at 3:56 pm
L’Affaire Stanford is causing considerable amusement and it’s justified given this guy’s history of sanctimony. The wider lesson is the GOP needs to get out of the morality business. At the moment the Scarlet H, for Hypocrisy, on their breast gets bigger by the day. But don’t hold your breath…..it’s another link in the Marley’s chain they’ve forged for themselves.
7 ltwpolitics // Jun 25, 2009 at 5:51 pm
At the very least, the GOP need to realize that the real threat to marriage is straight people, not the gays. The fact that philanders would pontificate about the “sanctity of marriage” while denying right to monogamous gays makes me want to vomit.
8 Jim Pier // Jun 25, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Cforchange -
“Prosperity first and family values will follow.”
You have the cart before the horse. Prosperity without character is more likely to lead to decadence than ‘family values’.
9 Jim Pier // Jun 25, 2009 at 9:39 pm
The failures of politicians to lead morally exemplary personal lives is to be expected. As H.L. Mencken observed:
“”The only way to success in American public life lies in flattering and kowtowing to the mob. A candidate for office, even the highest, must either adopt its current manias en bloc or convince it hypocritically that he has done so while cherishing reservations in petto. The result is that only two sorts of men stand any chance whatever of getting into actual control of affairs — first, glorified mob-men who genuinely believe what the mob believes, and secondly, shrewd fellows who are willing to make any sacrifice of conviction and self-respect in order to hold their jobs.”
10 Jim Pier // Jun 25, 2009 at 9:42 pm
ottovbvs
“But don’t hold your breath…..it’s another link in the Marley’s chain they’ve forged for themselves.”
What is your point?
11 Cforchange // Jun 26, 2009 at 7:17 am
Jim I’m referring to the real people when I say:
Prosperity first and family values will follow.
Ivy league leadership never abides by the rules now do they. But I stand firm in my opinion that if the average masses are put to work, appeciated, paid a reasonable amount they will respond by treating their families well. There you have improved family values.
I recently attended an outing where at dinner I was paired with a successful retired sales engineer who was in his 80’s. He described the work world as too mean too ugly. He doesn’t understand the future for his professional children. I asked him if was always the way and he clearly stated NO. He reported that he knew exactly in his career when the tides changed. It was 1982 when performance was evaluated daily. It no longer mattered that there were reasonable business cycles – expected ups and downs. It no longer mattered that a huge deal was looming soon, only today counted. Since 1982 in his book – if you didn’t deliver a miracle daily, slaughter was coming.
Maybe this is when we really started to spend more than we earned. I certainly think there is some correlation between the dispensible nature of an individual’s employment or livelihood and the home scene. Trickle down theory for sure. In my hood – virtually everyone younger than 40 has a really messy tangled family structure. All the while, the mantra of the GOP cries family values…
All this destruction of the family is great business for a church who’s trying to rehab folks. But for a political movement, it’s a true joke. Strong people who can manage their own personal lives have mostly distanced themselves from the GOP and so gives real meaning to the word Independent.
You must log in to post a comment.