Tuesday, October 11, 2016

You Were Expecting a Silk Purse?

So, Donald Trump is outed for being a sexually immoral, egotistical male. And the country goes wild. We don't stand for it. He has to go. Even his running mate won't defend him. Republicans jump on the stage and tell Donald to go to his room. McCain stood staunchly behind the Republican nominee until now. He's out. The likes of Carly Fiorina and Condoleeza Rice along with lists of senators and congressional delegates all say he needs to go. Even His wife condemned his comments. The public is outraged and we demand action.

Now, on one hand, I get it. I mean, this isn't good. There is nothing defensible about bragging about groping women -- made worse by them not being his wife -- and bragging about it in graphic terms. Not one piece of that works. Those trying to say "It's okay" haven't a leg to stand on. "It's just locker room talk" doesn't make it good or acceptable. What it does is make "locker room talk" something to avoid at all costs. "Boys will be boys" only makes it worse. Any defense lifted to try to prop him up here simply falls flat.

The alternative is to rail about Hillary. "Well, look at the serial womanizer she's married to." There are accusations of rape to be had. He was one of only two U.S. presidents who were impeached. But it's not just her husband. There is the whole email scandal, the accusations about Benghazi, the Whitewater scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the Vince Foster mystery, the Clinton Foundation issues ... suffice it to say that Mrs. Clinton is not without skeletons toppling out of her closet. The problem, though, is not that any of this exonerates Trump. Telling us that the Democratic candidate stinks to high heaven doesn't alleviate the stench from Trump's side.

Here's the problem. I'm completely lost here. I'm looking around wondering, "What did you expect?" It's like the headline I read the other day that Al Gore would be campaigning for Hillary. That's news? Of course he will. To me this whole thing is just that -- What did you expect? Look, we've managed to undercut all manner of sexual morality in our country. We aren't supposed to have any sexual morality left. To have something like that is "hate" and "bigotry". Our movies in theaters are immorality fests. Our television shows are supposedly filtered through FCC "obscene, indecent, and profane" rules, terms so redefined that it's hard to find a television show that is not predicated on sex. And then there is the Internet, where any sexual deviancy you can imagine and lots of stuff you cannot is available for viewing for 10-year-olds. Once limited to secret dark corners, it's now up front and public knowledge. People brag about it. Books-to-movies like 50 Shades of Gray made big bucks by enslaving largely female readers into lusting for abuse. And then a Donald Trump is recorded a decade ago agreeing with the culture we've built, and we're outraged.

I wonder what would happen if we had a comment test, where only those who didn't visit porn sites and who didn't read 50 Shades type books and didn't watch R-rated movies and the like could comment. Not a word out of you folks who enjoy the rap music so prevalent among certain age groups these days that celebrates and encourages Trump-morality and worse. Only those who were not by direct action supporting those things that approve and produce the very thing that Mr. Trump espoused were allowed to speak up. What if the hypocrites that pay good money to enjoy this stuff themselves were required to be quiet when it showed up in a presidential race? What do you suppose we'd hear then? Crickets.

We have undercut morality, tossed God out of schools, eliminated the Ten Commandments from the public square, and castigated anyone who argues for God's view of morality -- even for just themselves. And then we're surprised and appalled when someone exhibits immorality, irreverence, and evil. What did we expect? We cluck our disapproval and shake our heads at the immorality of the presidential candidate(s) and weep over the gun violence and abhor the sexism and racism and police brutality and ... well, you know, the world we've built by eliminating the only available Answer from the public square. What did we expect?

Trump was wrong. So is Hillary. They -- we -- need Christ. Our hypocritical moral indignation doesn't make much sense here. Ignoring Christ doesn't make a better world.

10 comments:

Danny Wright said...

The indignation is all show. For politicians, it's all theater for the uninformed, or those who are not living in reality. We know it's theater because it was largely absent when Bill Clinton did it. Sometimes some people, or groups, are just easier to beat up on.

Stan said...

Yes, I see your point, although some of the indignation is coming from the right -- the same people that were indignant about the Clinton debacle. Both sides seem to not notice that we're largely talking out of two sides of our mouths. "They mustn't do this, but we can indulge and disseminate it all we want." Both the Left and the Right.

Danny Wright said...

I was thinking more of the right when I wrote my comment. In my mind, the left actually has a point... to a point. They're actually being consistent... which is rare. They're asking the question, why don't you hold your own candidates to the same standard that you hold ours? Of course, they don't hold their own candidates to any consistent moral standard, and they're at least consistent about that. But our side doesn't hold the left to any standard either, especially if they have a claim to some sort of victim status, like being a woman or black. But the right has no problem beating up their own guys, because that's easy. And as a result the left, who they desperately want to like them, will.

In Trump's defense--and yes he is defensible--this was eleven years ago. The real question is, does he still feel/act this way? That's an important question, especially if he really did get saved. I'm not sure why we're so cynical about his salvation, and not the salvation of others. (Personally, I'm fairly cynical about anybody's salvation. I'm always looking for the fruit of it because of the deluge of false conversions.) Of course, getting saved yesterday doesn't automatically qualify someone for the White House. But hey, it does qualify them for heaven.

People change. I've changed. If I ran for president there'd be a city dump's worth of garbage that could be dug up against me. But they'd have a more difficult time in in the last 20 years, and an even harder time in the last 10, assuming that they could not read my mind.

In the end, we don't know what Trump would do if he actually won. We do know what Hilary will do. I have no problem voting for the platform, because of the opposition. If I thought Hillary was better, I vote for her. For me, it's not time to sit out the election. That will come when the platform changes to anti-life, which I assume it soon will.

Obama and Hillary, on the other hand, have not changed. They're the same radicals today as they've always been.

Danny Wright said...

I do, by the way, totally agree with your article.

Stan said...

By the way, I agreed with your original statement as well.

It's odd that the Left would complain about us being inconsistent when they said, "Character doesn't matter." And there are those on the Right that are saying, "It doesn't matter if Trump was bad", which would be inconsistent when they were the same ones saying, "Clinton is immoral!" What I find disturbing is the numbers of Trump supporters who are saying now, "Hey, it's just talk; we've all done it." Inconsistent.

As for the possibility that "that was then and Trump has changed", given some of the things he has said in this campaign, I look askance at those people who tell me that. "He's a baby Christian," they tell me. If he is, I wish he hadn't yet learned to speak.

But, as you saw, my point was not a defense of Trump; it was that our culture has built the Clintons and Trumps of this world. We shouldn't be surprised that both parties are offering, as their best options, the most hated candidates every.

Oh, and dejectedly sitting out this election because "I don't like either of them" is not a good option. Certainly not mine. I'm with you there.

David said...

I know it's not the topic, but I still haven't been given an option about my vote. Neither candidate is worthy of my vote. I don't necessarily want to "sit it out", but I don't see a viable option. Everyone is adamant that I must vote, but seems unable to give me a palatable option. Both candidates are a reflection of our national morality, and neither is the better option. So, what is my choice but to abstain?

Stan said...

I'm talking about intent, for the most part. Some will vote for Trump to avoid Hillary. I get it. I don't know that I agree with it, but I get it. Some will vote for Hillary to avoid Trump. I'm less impressed, but it's a vote. Some will write in a name. (I wish someone would give us a name to agree on.) Not a winning vote, but it is still an intentional vote. Others will vote on the other stuff (congress, etc.) and intentionally make no vote for president with the intent of making a statement: "We need better candidates!" It's still intent. My problem is the larger number who will say things like, "Well, I can't find one I can support, so I guess I'll just stay home" or "My vote doesn't count anyway, so I'll sit this out." That is a lack of intent. It is, in other words, a failure or even refusal to think about the welfare of those around us. In a world run by our God, sometimes we do the "impossible" ("I'll vote even if my vote doesn't make a difference?" or "I will vote for a sure loser to make my statement.") to allow God to use it for others. An "I won't do anything at all" is not such a thing.

Stan said...

Note: I've been told that the Left did not say, "Character doesn't matter." My mistake. As it turns out, it was Bill Clinton (1992) that said it. Oh, and also of note, Bill Clinton was not impeached for his relationship with Lewinsky. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. An extramarital affair is not illegal; it was the lying about it under oath that was illegal.

Anonymous said...

Which kind of people claim to despise any form of look-ism? "The Left" would be an answer that pops into mind. Yet what I see on social media is a few people pointing to Hillary's "cankles" and a whole bunch of people mocking Trump for his face, hair and build. I had an extreme-Leftist coworker for a few years. She would never refer to the second President Bush by his real name, instead calling him "monkey face." Maybe there are people that juvenile hanging out in some far-Right-Wing corner of the Net, but I haven't come across any such place.

Stan said...

I don't know who would be about "lookism", but I understand that the reason JFK beat Nixon was because Nixon sweated at the televised debate. That's lookism, isn't it?

The ad hominem is a favorite among people without arguments. Without logic, evidence, or reason, all they have is to insult people. Unfortunately too many people are swayed by "He's ugly and his mother dresses him funny".