Moral Values

Another thing on moral values- why do the democrats seem to want to define the broad topic of moral values so damn narrowly? If you listen to the post-election punditry from theleft, ‘moral values’ and homosexual marriage are the same thing. This is just absurd, because ‘moral values’ is an abstract label for something that can mean different things to different people. Let’s try to explain it this way.

If you have ever been to Blockbuster Video, you will notice that movies are arranged into artificially created categories. This is done to ease your search for the appropriate movie. However, often times movies are not where you would expect them to be. Sometimes what you thought was a comedy is in the drama section. Sometimes a drama might be found in action, etc. Why?

Because it is possible for different people to have different concepts concerning the dominant genre of the movie. For example, the movie ‘Lost in Translation.’ I thought of it as a comedy/drama. Others think of it as a romance picture. Others yet see little humor and would classify it as chiefly drama.

‘Moral values’ is the same way- it can mean different things to different people. I am perfectly willing to concede that a small fraction of the voters who voted for Bush (4-5 million), were perhaps motivated by bigotry and homophobia, and to them, ‘moral values’ may be defined as an all out intolerance of homosexuality and gay marriage. Having said that, just because there are bigots and homophobes in the Republican party (as there are in the Democratic party, the Libertarian party, hell, probably even the Green party), it is unfair and unrealistic to define the entire party by a minority of its constituents.

There are, however, numerous other ways to define moral values. If I had been asked what was meant about ‘moral values,’ I would have responded in a much different way. I couldn’t give two shits about homosexuality or gay marriage, so I probably have a different idea about ‘moral values.’ Let’s look at some other explanations or interpretations of moral values:

Honesty: John Kerry told so many damned lies throughout the campaign that even his own supporters were referring to him as profoundly phony. He was never honest about his position on the war in Iraq, and he was lying and is lying about his intentions to stay the course in Iraq. Everyone who voted for and most of the people who voted against Kerry knew every time he said he was going to ‘stay the course’ in Iraq and wanted to ‘win’ in Iraq he really meant he wanted to withdraw troops as soon as possible, victory and success be damned. That he, on his own, consistently felt the need to tell us that he wanted to win speak volumes. Does George Bush have to tell us he wants to win? Of course not, because we know he is serious and honest about his intentions in Iraq.

Want some more lies that Kerry willfully told throughout the campaign, and the press never said a thing abot? How about lying about the draft? How about lying about Bush ending social security? How about the lies regarding Osama and Tora Bora? How about the lies about outsourcing in general? How about lying about his military record and lying about releasing his records? How about lying about Bush’s record? Lying about the economy? If anything, the left helped to create the backlash Kerry suffered. Unwilling to call Kerry on any of his faleshoods, it emboldened him to make more and more and more. He was and is, after all, “Anyone But Bush.”

Character: Lawrence O’Donnell and Media Matters can dismiss the Swift Vets, but I can’t. I think Kerry did the honorable thing serving, but I can not get past 250 decorated veterans with stories that do, in many cases add up. One aspect that I can not understand is why there would be so many of them against him if there was nothing there. Military men do not justslander each other, so for all 250 men, this was not politically motivated. Hell, I spent almost ten years in the army, and if I ran for President, you probably couldn’t find 250 men who had an opinion about me one way or another. That in itself is telling.

Add to that all the other stories, like swearing at Secret Service agents, etc., and you paint a pretty unpleasant picture.

Loyalty: Call me a reactionary. Call me unfair. I simply will never excuse Kerry for his Senate testimony while our guys were in POW camps. Ever.

Moral Clarity: For Kerry- everything is nuanced. Bush has a clear vision of right and wrong. Critics mock him, but I appreciate this clarity of thought. We have enemies, and there is nothing wrong with publicly stating that we have enemies and confronting them.

Public Decency: While this sort of thing does not bother me (I am rather decadent in my cultural tastes), there are people who are bothered by what they see coming from Hollywood and the entertainment world. When John Kerry stands on a stage with a group of Hollywood actors and elites and says these are my people, it makes a choice between Bush and Kerry pretty easy for those with the viewpoint that Hollywood values just ain’t right.

There- right off the top of my head I can come up with a variety of interpretations for what people think of when they say they based their vote on moral issues, and each one provides a good reason that 79% of those who stated moral values were their most important issue voted for Bush.

Only in the liberal mind does moral values mean only homosexuality and gay marriage. And they say Bush has a Manichaean outlook.