Politics, Morality, Moralism

David Brooks (sorry; I can’t find a feed that breaches the NYT’s subscription wall, to link) and E.J. Dionne, both relative “moderates”, respectively a bit right and left of center, provide in their columns on the Foley matter a stark contrast, which should inform us of how deep really is the divide between most Republicans and Democrats.

Regardless of individual Republicans or Democrats who cross the line of illegality or immorality, the Republicans are still the party of social conservatives who support more moral rectitude in our culture, and the Democrats are still the party who support more laxity of public morals in the culture.

David Brooks contrasts the “cosmopolitan culture” with “ a moral code that’s been called expressive individualism. Under this code, the core mission of life is to throw off the shackles of social convention and to embark on a journey of self-discovery. Behavior is not wrong if it feels good and doesn’t hurt anybody else. Sex is not wrong so long as it is done by mutual consent.”

Brooks contrasts this cosmopolitan culture’s applause of the Vagina Monologues’ praise of an adult-child sexual experience with another code of conduct.

But, there’s another and older code, and people seem to be returning to this older code to judge Mark Foley. Under this older code, we are defined not by our individual choices but by our social roles.

Under this code, when an adult seduces a child, it tears the social fabric that joins all adults and all children….

This older code emphasizes not so much individual exploration as social ecology. It’s based on the idea that people are primarily shaped by the moral order around them, which is engraved upon their minds via a million events and habits….

In discussing the Foley case, the political class…has fled morality to talk about management….

In the long run, the party that benefits from such events as the Foley scandal will be the party that defines the core threats to the social fabric and emerges as the most ardent champion of moral authority.

E.J. Dionne starts off strong.

…the implication here is that those of us who are not conservatives might somehow be less affected by what Foley did. Excuse me, but I am a married father of three children, and that’s more important to me than the fact that I am a liberal….

…And many liberals who lead thoroughly old-fashioned, child-centered lives have not been willing to integrate that fact into the way they talk about policy.

Bravo!

But, then as cure, Dionne reverts to a narrower political agenda, not the need for public figures to live and support a broader social morality.

…The family values issues that we [liberals and conservatives] can do the most about through government and private-sector policies include how we organize work, how we provide for parental leave time, how we schedule the school day, how we guarantee medical benefits – in short, how we can make it easier for mothers and fathers alike to juggle their responsibilities.

Sorry, E.J., nice as that is, it does near nothing to address the utter moral corruption in our popular culture, the “million events and habits” Brooks refers to, that create the atmosphere in which gross and milder depredations are endorsed, considered normal, or tolerated.

There’s quite a difference between the excess moralism of some which would impose hyper-strict behaviors on others and the common Ten Commandments morality of the West, which does have reasonable respect for privacy. Politics are the last refuge of enforcement against the most severe breaches. But, common morality must come first and foremost.

When those most vociferous in promotion of or defense of “cosmopolitan culture” and its furthering or tolerance for immoral shock art are Democrats, and those most opposed are Republican, there is a clear difference presented for our choices. Miscreants of any political party must be uniformly punished. And, we must provide the moral order that prevents more of them from feeling they can faultlessly engage in their individual immorality and impose it on others through arts or personal acts.