Evilution

No, I didn't misspell that title. Let me explain.

Yesterday I wrote on the third-party concept. This is a further explanation on the same idea.

Few people deny that the morality of America today compared to the morality of America in the 1950's is much more ... relaxed. What was considered "common decency" in the '50's is outrageously narrow-minded today, and what was considered morally outrageous back then is considered commonplace today. In some cases people might even argue that the evolution of American morality is a good thing, but no one can rationally argue that it didn't happen. How did we get here from there?

The change from then (and even before) to now was not a sudden change. It was an evolution. It was progressive. The morality of the '50's was not the same as the morality of the '60's, and the morality of the '70's was not the same as the morality of the '80's. It was a process. A level of virtue held in the 50's was released in the 60's. Things that were "evil" became "tolerable", then "normal" and even "good". Values like family, children, and personal integrity shifted into the background, replaced with self-love and personal advancement. Women in the '50's, for instance, thought that being a wife and mother was a noble goal; today it is outlandish, backward, and repressive. Men in the '50's dreamt of a career, a family, and a family home; today staying at the same job with the same woman and the same house seems boring. Back then divorce was the exception; today it is the norm. Child molestors, rapists, murderers ... all sorts of evil has found its fuller expression today, released from yesterday's moral virtues.

So what is my point? The shift occurred gradually, accepting as tolerable something that was intolerable yesterday. It continues today. This is one of the reasons that I would have a serious problem voting for a Giuliani. Many see him as "the lesser of two evils." His views don't line up with ours, but better him than Hillary. To me, he represents a bigger threat than Hillary.

Many conservatives feel like the Republican party left them. They feel like their values have been ignored and their party has moved on. Putting a Giuliani in office would be another step away. Four years later, how many Republicans would be standing against abortion? A Giuliani-like candidate would be a shift away from the standards we value ... pushing a step further from the standards we value. And the longer we stay away from the standards we value, the more acceptable the new standard seems.

Is it better than Hillary? Maybe. We all know that Hillary's platform verges on socialism. There is no hint that she would be upholding conservative values. And therein lies the problem. Conservatives would vote for a Giuliani to exclude a Hillary, but no conservative would mistake Hillary for a conservative. So, with Hillary as the contrast, many would begin to think of the new Republican position -- the Giuliani candidate -- as "conservative" ... and normal. And the country steps away, again, from real values.

I see the same thing in many corners of life. Take music, for instance. Many conservatives recognize heavy metal or death metal or the like as "bad". We know that rap and hip hop represent "evil". But what about "easy listening"? What about the popular love songs? Well, they're singing about "spending the night together" and other values that Christians consider sin. Yet, they slip in as non-offensive because they are not death metal or rap. And the music culture teaches Christians that "love is a warm feeling" and "sex is between lovers, regardless of marital status." And because it's not that evil music, we swallow it.

Because it's not Hillary, but "one of our own", too many conservatives will buy into a Giuliani as something better than a Hillary. They won't see themselves take that baby step away from conservative values. They will think that they are limiting evil, while they step, ever so slightly, closer to accepting it. I cannot afford to vote that way. I'm not looking for a "perfect candidate". I'm not even trying to judge Giuliani's views. Nor am I trying to force my views on the Republican party. I just cannot, in good conscience, call a vote against an issue as large as protecting human life a "lesser evil". I cannot endorse someone who refuses to publicly stand for life, a basic function of government. I would not be able to stand there on Judgment Day and say, "Yes, I voted in favor of someone who won't protect life, but it wasn't as evil as the other." Indeed, if the Republican Party has left conservatives, where will we go? Maybe it is time to start a third party? At some point, at the very least, we need make some effort to stop the moral bleed.

After thought: During the 90's, when the Clintons were in office, there was outcry by the right against the President's lack of character. His defenders assured us that when it came to being a president, "Character doesn't count." The right didn't buy it. So why is it now, when Giuliani's character is in question regarding multiple divorces, etc., do we hear the same thing coming from the Republicans? Could it be that Clinton's decline has lowered the standards? That is what concerns me with a Giuliani.