I ignore the hyperbole, the sanctimony, the lies, the insults, the smears and the tantrums.
That'd be just about the only way any decent man or woman
could support this year's presidential candidates. That and
undergoing a thorough delousing after casting any vote other than "None of These Candidates."
[M]ost on the right rejected the moral bankruptcy that vindicated Bill Clinton — until Friday night,
that is. It is important to note, all moral justification and minimization notwithstanding around “locker-room
banter,” this was no locker-room banter. Trump did not say, “That chick is hot,” a comment that would
understandably offend people, but at least would be well within the realm of what we all know many guys
(even married guys) often say in private man-to-man conversation. Trump’s talk went beyond that in a very
important and particular way — he specifically describes, not just with words, but with words about actions
his attempt to “f@ck a married woman” (eight months after he himself entered his third marriage). He wasn’t
saying what he dreams about doing (which would be disgusting, too) — he was saying what he does (“I walk
up and just kiss them; I can’t help myself”). And, I might add, he wasn’t saying this to his best bud from
college — an old friend with whom he used to bar hop and pick up hotties. No, this was Billy Bush, an
anchor for Access Hollywood, on a tour bus.
And what was the response of the Clinton-impeaching Right, the Moral Majority, the beacons of virtue and
decency in an era of moral relativism? Well, one particular Trump-advocate took to the airwaves to point
out that King David had 500 concubines, a line that actually left me aghast at Sean Hannity’s intelligence
and decency, when I thought expectations couldn’t dip any lower. Tucker Carlson explained that, while
what Trump said disturbed him, he didn’t understand why everyone was playing dumb. We all know that
everyone does it and everyone says it, right? The break-your-Twitter-feed cop-out for this latest
embarrassment from this wretched candidate? “Come on, we all know that Clinton is worse; I care more
about Hillary’s e-mails than what Trump said just joking around.”
And there you have it. Expressions of ethical standards when condemning Bill Clinton are good and right,
but they will be impossible to come by unless one differs with the politics of Bill Clinton. And being appalled
at Donald Trump’s vulgarity is intuitive and righteous, but apparently all too rare unless one is mortified
by Hillary Clinton, or is not a nativist-nationalist. The fact of the matter is that selective moral outrage is
nothing new in politics, or anywhere else, but it is highly problematic for those whose aim is a flourishing
society. The aspirations conservatives have for our republic are undermined far more by this type of moral
hypocrisy and selectivity than by a bad trade bill or a bad judicial appointment. The reality is that
both sides of the political aisle will do much better to pick a lane, and stick in it. If personal decision-making
is not pertinent to leadership and qualifications, then the Left should say so, and let Anthony Weiner run
for office, and let Strauss-Kahn chair key economic committees in between frequent “breaks.” And if one’s
fidelity to marriage vows, personal character, and sexual ethics do matter, the Right ought to hold firm,
and stay wed to the idea that the greatest enactment of the greatest ideas comes from the greatest of
courage and conviction. The pitiful correlation between outrage and politics in matters of moral
failure is a public embarrassment.
---David L. Bahnsen, National Review.
(Emphases added.---EA.)
I make no claim to any degree of moral or ethical superiority when I say that there is a
phenomenaldistinction between a merely flawed man or woman and a man or woman sunk to such grotesqueries as
have been sunk Donaldus Minimus and Hilarious Rodent Clinton alike, in terms of their political thought
and of their character. Once upon a time we believed character counted enough to weight heavily for or
against someone's fitness for high office. Now we are asked to ignore it by the very people who once
demanded answers, if not heads on plates, of every one of those who demanded its ignorance when it
applied to Droopy-Drawers Clinton.
Hilarious Rodent Clinton enables sexual misconduct. (Yes, I phrase it politely.) Donaldus Minimus reeks
of it. And now his most stubborn supporters (you, RiV, aren't even close to the most stubborn of the lot)
demand we think nothing of it, let it go, focus on the bigger picture, essentially wishing we treat him
like . . . Bill Clinton's supporters treated old Droopy-Drawers himself, demanding everyone else do
likewise?
In the words of (dare I say the name?) Joseph McCarthy, it's just about the most unheard-of thing anyone
ever heard of.
