Posted on 06/21/2011 5:22:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
In the aftermath of the exposure and resignation of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) from Congress, his colleagues, some journalists, ethicists and pundits are trying to sort out what it means. Has a new standard been created in Washington? How can Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) remain in office under an ethical cloud about money and Weiner be forced to resign because he had fantasy sex? It wasn't even "real" sex, like Bill Clinton had. Clinton also lied about sex and was impeached for lying (but not for the sex because as actress Janeane Garofalo told Bill Maher recently, "everyone lies about sex"). Some wondered then if standards had fallen for occupants of the Oval Office, or whether the behavior of Clinton and some Republicans mirror a national moral decline?
The Washington Post ran a front-page story last Friday, the sub headline of which said, "Had congressman not lied, colleague says, 'it could have ended differently.'"
So it isn't what used to be called moral turpitude that did Weiner in, but lying about it? If he had not been exposed, would he have been any less morally guilty? Who decides? Not the voters. Democratic Party leaders forced Weiner out. They were embarrassed by his behavior and they wished to discuss other things.
A University of Maryland student friend of mine tells me one of her classes last semester discussed "the normalization of deviance." In an age when what is normal is determined by culture and opinion polls and when "orthodoxy" is regarded as something to be avoided, deviance has ceased to have meaning. That's because there is now no nationally accepted standard by which it can be measured and, thus, be used to hold people, even members of Congress, accountable.
If lying is now the unpardonable political sin, we may at last have found a way to limit congressional terms. If lying is sufficient reason to expel a member, then the halls of Congress may soon be vacant of all but the janitorial crew who empty the trash and mop the floors at night.
All politicians lie at some level, even Jimmy Carter, who promised during the 1976 campaign and in the aftermath of Watergate, "I'll never lie to you." He did though. Google "Jimmy Carter lies" and read for yourself. According to the list, he's still telling lies, 30 years after leaving office.
George H.W. Bush promised, "Read my lips. No new taxes." We read his lips, but were they lying lips? He caved into Congress, which raised taxes during his single term. Bush signed the legislation.
In 1963, before cynicism replaced skepticism in the press, Pentagon spokesman Arthur Sylvester spoke about government's "inherent right to lie." Granted, it was in the context of "to save itself when facing a nuclear disaster..." but as we know from the Pentagon Papers, lies from government became commonplace during the Vietnam War. More than 58,000 Americans, whose names appear on the Vietnam Memorial Wall in Washington, are victims of those lies.
President Obama's lies about many things are catalogued on various websites and increasingly in mainstream newspapers. Some who led cheers for him in 2008 are now finding his lies difficult to ignore. Glenn Kessler, who writes the Fact Checker column for the Washington Post, recently awarded the president "three Pinocchios" (out of four) for his claim that "Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes American taxpayers for their support during my presidency."
There are many, more examples. Sure, Republicans lie, too, but if lying about something, rather than bad ideas or bad behavior, is the new standard in Washington, D.C., someone had better tell the politicians.
Thomas Jefferson did in an Aug. 19, 1785 letter to Peter Carr: "...he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions."
ping for later
ping for later
Cal Thomas makes salient points. Lying is but the tip of the iceburg of our national discontent. We have come to accept all manner of deviancy in our elected officials and cultural icons. Ministers, moguls and mavens all have infected the culture from the top down.
If there is an area in which the elites have permeated society with their influuence it is in the area of dysfunctional ethics.
We live in moral chaos, suffering the disruption of cultural stability just as Rome on the eve of being overrun by the Goths. Substitute the US for Rome and Islam for the Goths and you have a pretty good assessment of our current condition. We are about to be raped and plundered.
WE haven't. Only those with an elitist mindset have. Even those who don't consider themselves to be "elite" can have an elitIST mindset, wherein they believe that the "special people" can live by different rules.
———We live in moral chaos-——
The condition is chaos only to one with ethics and morals.
To be progressive is to have neither, to live unshackled by the hard learned rules for being civilized.
Everyone who calls themselves Democrat is an American enemy, far worse and more deadly than an Al Qeada fanatic.
This is very true. The Dem line, which has emerged in opinion articles all over the press, is that “all men do this.” Or if they don’t actually do it, they want to, and old Tony was just being brave enough to go out and do it.
What? Text pictures of their privates to women they don’t even know? Spend hours playing with their weenies while talking dirty to these or other unknown women and girls?
I doubt it.
Deviancy has not only been defined down but actually seems to have become a cultural goal.
Our society is like an ecosystem in stress, how much garbage can we absorb before it overwhelms the system. Those journalists who put forth deviance as normal are like people backing up a truck full of toxic chemicals to dump in the river. Whatever beliefs a person may have, the simple fact is that some behaviors are destructive to society.
Right. You want to know where it starts?
Here's one for you: We have a student assistant for the summer. He's supposed to begin at 8:00 a.m. No problem, right? He has no classes in the summer. BUT... he CANNOT arrive by eight....it is always 8:30 before he gets in. So, the hours are adjusted to 8:30 a.m.... Now it's a lead pipe cinch he will NOT arrive until 9:00 a.m.
Just say'n
Way too broad a statement. Leftists regard themselves as part of a movement. Anything can be justified if it can be portrayed as furthering the movement toward its goals. The vast majority of Americans don't believe that. Voters in Weiner's district would prefer that he not have acted in that manner, but they were making a cost-benefit judgment. This demonstrates the extent to which decent people have been enslaved by the political system.
Very well said Louis.
FMCDH(BITS)
I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaraies, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation.
The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain system of morality.
We objected to the morality, because it interfered with our sexual freedom. We objected to the political and economic system, because it was unjust.
The supporters of these systems claim that in some way they embodied the meaning-- a Christian meaning, they insisted-- of the world.
There was one admirably simple method of confusing these people and at the same time justify ourselves in our political and erotic revolt. We could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever. (Huxley, Ends and Means p. 27, 1937)
I mean, one important lesson from the Weiner saga is that a combination of an iPhone and a Twitter account just gives a person a lot of ways to demonstrate to the world just how big an imbecile he is.
Interesting.
I kept hoping and hoping to see her caught in the crossfire, and was disappointed every episode.
We’ve got one of those but he’s a full-grown ‘adult’ who can’t make it in on time to save his life. Half an hour late, almost every day.
I do not believe that lewdness found out more easily accounts for the denigration of morality. It is certainly true that communications are easier.
On the other hand the com pros are less inclined to publicize miscreant behavior especially among their heroes. The sheer volume of immorality and its ease of penetration into the culture is worsening. There is no question that we are headed down a road to destruction.
Not broad at all as your explanation clarifies. The liberal movement fosters loosened morality, spendthrift economics and radical democracy. How is my comment too road?
Sorry Louis. I interpreted you to mean “most Americans”. If you meant “most liberals” then I have no quibble with your post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.