On "Moral Values," It's Blue in a Landslide

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
On 'Moral Values,' It's Blue in a Landslide

Frank Rich
Published: November 14, 2004

FAREWELL to Swift boats and "Shove it!," to Osama's tape and Saddam's missing weapons, to "security moms" and outsourced dads. They've all been sent to history's dustbin faster than Ralph Nader memorabilia was dumped on eBay. In their stead stands a single ambiguous phrase coined by an anonymous exit pollster: "Moral values." By near universal agreement the morning after, these two words tell the entire story of the election: it's the culture, stupid.

"It really is Michael Moore versus Mel Gibson," said Newt Gingrich. To Jon Stewart, Nov. 2 was the red states' revenge on "Will & Grace." William Safire, speaking on "Meet the Press," called the Janet Jackson fracas "the social-political event of the past year." Karl Rove was of the same mind: "I think it's people who are concerned about the coarseness of our culture, about what they see on the television sets, what they see in the movies ..."

And let's not even get started on the two most dreaded words in American comedy, regardless of your party affiliation: Whoopi Goldberg.

There's only one problem with the storyline proclaiming that the country swung to the right on cultural issues in 2004. Like so many other narratives that immediately calcify into our 24/7 media's conventional wisdom, it is fiction. Everything about the election results - and about American culture itself - confirms an inescapable reality: John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide. Kerry voters who have been flagellating themselves since Election Day with a vengeance worthy of "The Passion of the Christ" should wake up and smell the Chardonnay.

The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among Democrats. Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears. Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out.

If anyone is laughing all the way to the bank this election year, it must be the undisputed king of the red cultural elite, Rupert Murdoch. Fox News is a rising profit center within his News Corporation, and each red-state dollar that it makes can be plowed back into the rest of Fox's very blue entertainment portfolio. The Murdoch cultural stable includes recent books like Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" and the Vivid Girls' "How to Have a XXX Sex Life," which have both been synergistically, even joyously, promoted on Fox News by willing hosts like Rita Cosby and, needless to say, Mr. O'Reilly. There are "real fun parts and exciting parts," said Ms. Cosby to Ms. Jameson on Fox News's "Big Story Weekend," an encounter broadcast on Saturday at 9 p.m., assuring its maximum exposure to unsupervised kids.

Almost unnoticed in the final weeks of the campaign was the record government indecency fine levied against another prime-time Fox television product, "Married by America." The $1.2 million bill, a mere bagatelle to Murdoch stockholders, was more than twice the punishment inflicted on Viacom for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." According to the F.C.C. complaint, one episode in this heterosexual marriage-promoting reality show included scenes in which "partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies," and two female strippers "playfully spank" a man on all fours in his underwear. "Married by America" is gone now, but Fox remains the go-to network for Paris Hilton ("The Simple Life") and wife-swapping ("Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy").

None of this has prompted an uprising from the red-state Fox News loyalists supposedly so preoccupied with "moral values." They all gladly contribute fungible dollars to Fox culture by boosting their fair-and-balanced channel's rise in the ratings. Some of these red staters may want to make love like porn stars besides. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) An ABC News poll two weeks before the election found that more Republicans than Democrats enjoy sex "a great deal." The Democrats' new hero, Illinois Senator-elect Barack Obama, was assured victory once his original, ostentatiously pious Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race rather than defend his taste for "avant-garde" sex clubs.

The 22 percent of voters who told pollsters that "moral values" were their top election issue - 79 percent of whom voted for Bush-Cheney - corresponds almost exactly to the number of voters (23 percent) who describe themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians. They are entitled to their culture, too, and their own entertainment industry. And their own show-biz scandals. The Los Angeles Times reported this summer that Paul Crouch, the evangelist who founded the largest Christian network, Trinity Broadcasting Network, vehemently denied a former employee's accusation that the two had had a homosexual encounter - though not before paying the employee a $425,000 settlement. Not so incidentally, Trinity joined Gary Bauer and Fox News as prime movers in "Redeem the Vote," the Christian-rock alternative to MTV's "Rock the Vote."

But the distance between this hard-core red culture and the majority blue culture is perhaps best captured by Tom Coburn, the newly elected Republican senator from Oklahoma, lately famous for discovering "rampant" lesbianism in that state's schools. As a congressman in 1997, Mr. Coburn attacked NBC for encouraging "irresponsible sexual behavior" and taking "network TV to an all-time low with full frontal nudity, violence and profanity being shown in our homes." The broadcast that prompted his outrage on behalf of "parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere" was the network's prime-time showing of Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List."

It's in the G.O.P.'s interest to pander to this far-right constituency - votes are votes - but you can be certain that a party joined at the hip to much of corporate America, Mr. Murdoch included, will take no action to curtail the blue culture these voters deplore. As Marshall Wittman, an independent-minded former associate of both Ralph Reed and John McCain, wrote before the election, "The only things the religious conservatives get are largely symbolic votes on proposals guaranteed to fail, such as the gay marriage constitutional amendment." That amendment has never had a prayer of rounding up the two-thirds majority needed for passage and still doesn't.

Mr. Wittman echoes Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?," by common consent the year's most prescient political book. "Values," Mr. Frank writes, "always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections are won." Under this perennial "trick," as he calls it, Republican politicians promise to stop abortion and force the culture industry "to clean up its act" - until the votes are counted. Then they return to their higher priorities, like cutting capital gains and estate taxes. Mr. Murdoch and his fellow cultural barons - from Sumner Redstone, the Bush-endorsing C.E.O. of Viacom, to Richard Parsons, the Republican C.E.O. of Time Warner, to Jeffrey Immelt, the Bush-contributing C.E.O. of G.E. (NBC Universal) - are about to be rewarded not just with more tax breaks but also with deregulatory goodies increasing their power to market salacious entertainment. It's they, not Susan Sarandon and Bruce Springsteen, who actually set the cultural agenda Gary Bauer and company say they despise.

But it's not only the G.O.P.'s fealty to its financial backers that is predictive of how little cultural bang the "values" voters will get for their Bush-Cheney votes. At 78 percent, the nonvalues voters have far more votes than they do, and both parties will cater to that overwhelming majority's blue tastes first and last. Their mandate is clear: The same poll that clocked "moral values" partisans at 22 percent of the electorate found that nearly three times as many Americans approve of some form of legal status for gay couples, whether civil unions (35 percent) or marriage (27 percent). Do the math and you'll find that the poll also shows that for all the G.O.P.'s efforts to court Jews, the total number of Jewish Republican voters in 2004, while up from 2000, was still some 200,000 less than the number of gay Republican voters.

When Robert Novak writes after the election that "the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, socially conservative agenda is ascendant, and the G.O.P. will not abandon it anytime soon," you have to wonder what drug he is on. The abandonment began at the convention. Sam Brownback, the Kansas senator who champions the religious right, was locked away in an off-camera rally across town from Madison Square Garden. Prime time was bestowed upon the three biggest stars in post-Bush Republican politics: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. All are supporters of gay rights and opponents of the same-sex marriage constitutional amendment. Only Mr. McCain calls himself pro-life, and he's never made abortion a cause. None of the three support the Bush administration position on stem-cell research. When the No. 1 "moral values" movie star, Mel Gibson, condemned the Schwarzenegger-endorsed California ballot initiative expanding and financing stem-cell research, the governor and voters crushed him like a girlie-man. The measure carried by 59 percent, which is consistent with national polling on the issue.

If the Republican party's next round of leaders are all cool with blue culture, why should Democrats run after the red? Received Washington wisdom has it that the only Democrat who will ever be able to win a national election must be a cross between Gomer Pyle and Billy Sunday - a Scripture-quoting Sun Belt exurbanite whose loyalty to Nascar does not extend to Dale Earnhardt Jr., who was fined last month for saying a four-letter word on television.

According to this argument, the values voters the Democrats must pander to are people like Cary and Tara Leslie, archetypal Ohio evangelical "Bush votes come to life" apotheosized by The Washington Post right after Election Day. The Leslies swear by "moral absolutes," support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and mostly watch Fox News. Mr. Leslie has also watched his income drop from $55,000 to $35,000 since 2001, forcing himself, his wife and his three young children into the ranks of what he calls the "working poor." Maybe by 2008 some Democrat will figure out how to persuade him that it might be a higher moral value to worry about the future of his own family than some gay family he hasn't even met.


Cliff Notes: Pepsi is better than Coke :p
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
I always believed this voting for moral values was a bunch of hypocrisy. Those who say that just like to partake in their perversions in the privacy of their basements or from behind their pulpits
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,627
6,452
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I always believed this voting for moral values was a bunch of hypocrisy. Those who say that just like to partake in their perversions in the privacy of their basements or from behind their pulpits

Yup, without a strong cowboy to rope and wrangle or stone and whip the corrupt, the religious right fears it would 'bust out' and start fornicating in the streets. What people fear is what they repress.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
One of the weirdest thing about the moralism argument is that the blue states come out ahead of the red states on most measures of morality, having lower numbers of out-of-wedlock births, lower divorce rates, and lower homicide rates. So why are they being assailed as immoral by politicians and radical clerics from areas with clearly greater moral difficulties?
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"moral values"=fear/loathing of gays. That's about the extent of it.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
You guys don't quite understand the whole "moral values" crowd, I think. They aren't worried about THEIR moral values, because they are perfect already. They are worried about the moral values of other people, often a small segment of society, because that way they can blame all the ills of society on those other people. The man who goes and votes to ban gay marriage, then goes home and beats his wife, can feel good about saving our moral values. The complete hypocracy of many of these people escapes them, because it's more about being able to say you are "protecting moral values" without actually having to improve your OWN moral values.

The whole idea that gay marriage is out biggest moral issues is moronic. There are far more numerous concerns than gay people, even if gay people damanged the moral fiber of society. Personally I don't think most of the moral values voters would recognize morals if the morals kicked them in the crotch.
 

sierrita

Senior member
Mar 24, 2002
929
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
You guys don't quite understand the whole "moral values" crowd, I think. They aren't worried about THEIR moral values, because they are perfect already. They are worried about the moral values of other people, often a small segment of society, because that way they can blame all the ills of society on those other people. The man who goes and votes to ban gay marriage, then goes home and beats his wife, can feel good about saving our moral values. The complete hypocracy of many of these people escapes them, because it's more about being able to say you are "protecting moral values" without actually having to improve your OWN moral values.

The whole idea that gay marriage is out biggest moral issues is moronic. There are far more numerous concerns than gay people, even if gay people damanged the moral fiber of society. Personally I don't think most of the moral values voters would recognize morals if the morals kicked them in the crotch.



Well said.

:thumbsup:
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally stated by: George Washington
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Call it morals, I call it ethics. In either case, it is the foundation for the rule of law. You can disagree with it until you're blue in the face, but you can't disregard it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,627
6,452
126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally stated by: George Washington
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Call it morals, I call it ethics. In either case, it is the foundation for the rule of law. You can disagree with it until you're blue in the face, but you can't disregard it.

The hunger for justice is something we are born with. You become moral not via religion or books but by being real. Nothing is quite so dangerous as a person convinced of his morality and cut off from himself. It's where we get the authoritarian right.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
We get to be moral by pointing at the 'bad' guy and showing how immoral he is. Bush succeeded in this by linking Islam with Osama... the "Muslim Terrorist" was what many were fed.. so to be moral you had to be quite the opposite of that and then they dropped the 'Muslim' part and went with 'Ungodly' which meant that the religious right were the most moral of earthly creatures.. So..... we want to be moral and to be moral we must be religious and the liberal began to fight a battle it could not win..
I think!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,627
6,452
126
Originally posted by: LunarRay
We get to be moral by pointing at the 'bad' guy and showing how immoral he is. Bush succeeded in this by linking Islam with Osama... the "Muslim Terrorist" was what many were fed.. so to be moral you had to be quite the opposite of that and then they dropped the 'Muslim' part and went with 'Ungodly' which meant that the religious right were the most moral of earthly creatures.. So..... we want to be moral and to be moral we must be religious and the liberal began to fight a battle it could not win..
I think!
The right sucked all the phony morality right out of the air leaving liberals with the hopeless task of talking about something real. There's no bigger turn off that talking about real morality because it has that nasty mirror attached.

 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The right sucked all the phony morality right out of the air leaving liberals with the hopeless task of talking about something real. There's no bigger turn off that talking about real morality because it has that nasty mirror attached.
Simply because I am not the pinnacle of morality does not mean that I cannot aspite to or discuss morality. Only by examining it can we hope to come close to achieving it.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Karl Rove was of the same mind: "I think it's people who are concerned about the coarseness of our culture, about what they see on the television sets, what they see in the movies ..."

That POS Karl Rove is one to talk. This is the kind of sh1t he pulls in civil society:



Kennedy had spent years on the bench as a juvenile and family-court judge, during which time he had developed a strong interest in aiding abused children. In the early 1980s he had helped to start the Children's Trust Fund of Alabama, and he later established the Corporate Foundation for Children, a private, nonprofit organization. At the time of the race he had just served a term as president of the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect. One of rove's signature tactics is to attack an opponent on the very front that seems unassailable. Kennedy was no exception.

Some of Kennedy's campaign commercials touted his volunteer work, including one that showed him holding hands with children. "We were trying to counter the positives from that ad," a former rove staffer told me, explaining that some within the See camp initiated a whisper campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile. "It was our standard practice to use the University of Alabama Law School to disseminate whisper-campaign information," the staffer went on. "That was a major device we used for the transmission of this stuff. The students at the law school are from all over the state, and that's one of the ways that Karl got the information out?he knew the law students would take it back to their home towns and it would get out." This would create the impression that the lie was in fact common knowledge across the state.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,627
6,452
126
Hope I didn't imply you weren't a pinnacle or something. Personally I think you become moral best by understanding what you feel. The self hate I spoke of causes the rise of the ego, a defense against nagative feeling. That self does not know what it feels and so it has all sorts of false emotional needs because the real need is denied access to consciousness. This means that the needs become compulsive because thay can be suppressed but never driven away. By feeling how we feel we can feel our real needs. There's nothing immoral about them. Anyway nite for now, I'm tyoing in my sleep.
 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I always believed this voting for moral values was a bunch of hypocrisy. Those who say that just like to partake in their perversions in the privacy of their basements or from behind their pulpits

Yup, without a strong cowboy to rope and wrangle or stone and whip the corrupt, the religious right fears it would 'bust out' and start fornicating in the streets. What people fear is what they repress.

Aye, what people truely fear is themselves.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Hope I didn't imply you weren't a pinnacle or something. Personally I think you become moral best by understanding what you feel. The self hate I spoke of causes the rise of the ego, a defense against nagative feeling. That self does not know what it feels and so it has all sorts of false emotional needs because the real need is denied access to consciousness. This means that the needs become compulsive because thay can be suppressed but never driven away. By feeling how we feel we can feel our real needs. There's nothing immoral about them. Anyway nite for now, I'm tyoing in my sleep.
I understand what I feel sufficiently to understand that I am not the pinnacle without someone else implying it.
 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally stated by: George Washington
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Call it morals, I call it ethics. In either case, it is the foundation for the rule of law. You can disagree with it until you're blue in the face, but you can't disregard it.

The hunger for justice is something we are born with. You become moral not via religion or books but by being real. Nothing is quite so dangerous as a person convinced of his morality and cut off from himself. It's where we get the authoritarian right.
I agree with you.

It is disingenuous and downright condescending to think that man cannot be moral without religion, and then again, moralitly comes from religion which dwells on the fact that thee is something much greater and wiser than us without which we would be murdering each other. The arguments never end.

Either way, morality is hypocritical in most modern day applications.
 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The right sucked all the phony morality right out of the air leaving liberals with the hopeless task of talking about something real. There's no bigger turn off that talking about real morality because it has that nasty mirror attached.
Simply because I am not the pinnacle of morality does not mean that I cannot aspite to or discuss morality. Only by examining it can we hope to come close to achieving it.

That is, if we truely want to examine it. I do, and it seems as if you would do the same, but many MANY people would rather not and live in their fictional "bread basket"
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
That is, if we truely want to examine it. I do, and it seems as if you would do the same, but many MANY people would rather not and live in their fictional "bread basket"
The purpose of government, then, must be to force some set of morals on its citizenry, agreed? Otherwise we descend into idiocy governed by those who live in the fiction world that you described.
 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
That is, if we truely want to examine it. I do, and it seems as if you would do the same, but many MANY people would rather not and live in their fictional "bread basket"
The purpose of government, then, must be to force some set of morals on its citizenry, agreed? Otherwise we descend into idiocy governed by those who live in the fiction world that you described.

The purpose of a government however, changes with the majority of those who weigh in on who is elected. Perhaps something is moral for some and immoral for others, but in the end, the majority will be those lucky enough to define morality for all.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
The purpose of a government however, changes with the majority of those who weigh in on who is elected. Perhaps something is moral for some and immoral for others, but in the end, the majority will be those lucky enough to define morality for all.
That is what separates our government from many others - the ability to maintain relative stability in the face of apparent sweeping changes of public opinion. Even with a fairly large majority, a party cannot make drastic changes.

I disagree if you're implying that there are indeed right and wrong moralities. I believe that there are distinct rights and wrongs. The difference is the acceptance of these morals by people.
 

Goosemaster

Lifer
Apr 10, 2001
48,775
3
81
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
The purpose of a government however, changes with the majority of those who weigh in on who is elected. Perhaps something is moral for some and immoral for others, but in the end, the majority will be those lucky enough to define morality for all.
That is what separates our government from many others - the ability to maintain relative stability in the face of apparent sweeping changes of public opinion. Even with a fairly large majority, a party cannot make drastic changes.

I disagree if you're implying that there are indeed right and wrong moralities. I believe that there are distinct rights and wrongs. The difference is the acceptance of these morals by people.

I am not arguing the existance of convenient or varying morality, but rather the application of it. Perhaps certain truths are universal, but I am simply arguing to what extent morality is many times defined by those in power.

The phase our government has now entered is contrasting with everything its foundation seems to champion Perhaps certain Republicans differ from the Republican majority in some respects, but for the most part, the government is now under the rule of a republican goverment. Because of this true partisianship will rule over morality and attempt to define it at its convenience, regardless of the present situation, or a hypothetical situation in which most of the government was democratic.

The specificities of Morality are subjective by nature and geography. The beauty of this nation is that it is setup to, ideally, have morality and similar issues, clash in an enviroment that is designed to absorb, learn, and grow from these debates.

Then again, I tend to be an idealist, so mcuh of the good of which I speak never takes place, and much of the bad is quite prevalent.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
I am not arguing the existance of convenient or varying morality, but rather the application of it. Perhaps certain truth are universal, but I am simply arguing to what extent morality is many times defined by thsoe in power.

The phase our government has now entered is contrasting with everything its foundation seems to champion Perhaps certain Republicans differ from the Republican majority in some respects, but for the most part, the government is now under the rule of a republican goverment. Because of this true partisianship will rule over morality and attempt to define it at its convenience, regardless of the present situation, or a hypothetical situation in which most of the government was democratic.

Morality is subjective. The beauty of this nation is that it is setup to, ideally, have morality and similar issues, clash in an envirometn that is design to absorb, learn, and grow from these debates.

Then again, I tend to be an idealist, so mcuh of the good of which I speak never takes place, and much of the bad is quite prevalent.
:beer:
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Yeah, an opinion piece for the Arts & Leisure desk of the NY Times...

For every Tom Coburn, there's an idiot Democrat in congress, Thank goodness for the Dems & Maxine Waters...