Logic Times

The Death of Decency

Posted by Aslan, 11/05/04, 12:45am. Comments (2)

George W. Bush is a decent and honorable man. The myriad post-mortem reviews of the election generally agree that moral values – Bush’s moral values - trumped traditional hot button Democrat issues like the economy and health care. The character of this president is best revealed in his regard for the White House staff. Whereas the White House servants were invisible to Bill Clinton and terrorized by his wife, George W. Bush has already established a legacy of reverent regard for the residence itself and of courteous and dignified treatment of the entire White House staff (recounted in detail in A Matter Of Character: Inside The White House Of George W. Bush by Ronald Kessler). The staggering lack of scandal also speaks to the determination of George W. Bush to erase the stain his predecessor left on the Presidency.

Policy disagreements are one thing, a perfectly acceptable and expected component of political discourse. Everyone is free to challenge this man’s policies. But an honest evaluation of George W. Bush’s personal qualities would, should and does leave the majority of Americans impressed with his character. On Tuesday, November 2nd, the electorate loudly echoed this sentiment.

But a segment of the American population remains not only unimpressed with the character of George W. Bush, they regard him as infinitely more dangerous and evil than the Saddam Husseins of the world. The out-of-power Democrat elite and the Euro-socialist fringe, the Hollywood left and the disgruntled barons of academia are as convinced of Bush’s moral bankruptcy as they are of Saddam's.

Hyperbole?

(This is not a comprehensive list.)

How can a decent man generate this library of hate? These books do not represent policy debates. If you force yourself to pick up one of these noisome texts and flip through the pages, one ubiquitous word will jump out at you: LIES. Is there no greater indictment of character than to be labeled a liar? And not a liar about golf scores or cholesterol levels, but a liar about life and death. Lies that are necessarily fueled by the death of both American and foreign innocents. Such lies as these obliterate the question of character and more aptly describe Hitler, Amin or de Sade.

(Curiously enough, an investigation into the published evils of Saddam Hussein, a man personally responsible for the deaths of over a million innocents, yields only a fraction of this material.)

How do we reconcile this disagreement? How can the majority of Americans recognize the truth of our President’s decency where a vocal, yet educated, minority sees only unbridled evil? It is simple: elite liberals do not believe in honesty and decency, certainly not in conservatives. Decency, defined as “the quality of conforming to standards of propriety and morality” has at its roots the absolute morality of the Creator. The rejection of God by the liberal elite has not only cast them into the relative moral abyss that consumes civilizations, it has endowed them with such a suffocating skepticism of honorable behavior that, in defiance of Occam’s Razor, they mutilate and twist reality to cobble together fantasies of presidential evil. And what better way to breathe life into fantasy than to write a book (or make a movie)? Who among us has not heard a third grader exclaim: "It has to be true, it's in a book!"?

The death of decency in the mind of the liberal transforms liberation into occupation, duty into folly, self-defense into imperialism, and George W. Bush into Saddam Hussein.

Comments

1: thomaspaul

November 6, 2004 04:22pm EST

Great commentary! The pictures of those books reminded me of every visit I make to a bookstore. Anything pro-Bush is hard to find and everything - and I mean everything - that is anti-Bush is displayed prominently on best-seller tables and in the windows. What's with these people? Do liberals own all the bookstores, too? To the pathetic list of Hollywood's limousine liberals, academia and the mainstream media I suppose we must add bookstore owners?

I'm imagining a conservative book store where you can find everything that is pro-Bush, pro-God, pro-decency, pro-America, pro-responsibility and pro-hard work ethic, where the clerks are knowledgeable, friendly and conversant in conservative world-views. Do these exist anywhere, or is God holding out on us, waiting until we get to Heaven?

{Aslan: With 59,459,765 potential active customers (Bush Voters), I would think your idea would interest some conservative entrepreneur out there...}

2: Russell Fletcher

November 9, 2004 03:23pm EST

Call it "Death of Decency," "Moral Bankruptcy," "Moral Equivalence," or simply "Situational Ethics," it is a pox upon America. For me it began in earnest when main-stream media pundits would argue that Clinton's actions as President were defensible because...wait for it...the economy was good! Huh? What does one have to do with the other?

It's as if the new credo is, "If you disagree with a man's policy, than you disagree with a man's character." Staunch Democrats actually believe that this all started with the Republican reaction to the denigration of the Presidency by casting moral aspersions at Clinton. Well, didn't he create that problem with his lack of character? "No," they say, "Republicans created it by making it such a big deal. After all, everybody lies about sex!"

Perhaps. But sex was not the issue-poor judgment, disrespect for the office of President, lying under oath, lying directly to the American people (wagging his finger, no less!), and encouraging others to lie on his behalf - THESE were the issues.

Ad hominem attacks are the ultimate "moving of the goal posts" or the "Yes, but..." defense. The argument goes like this:

GOP: The war on terror must be won - against terrorists and the states that sponsor them. (Goal clearly stated: eliminate terrorism)

DEM: Yes, but only if they attack us first. (goal post moved: eliminate terrorists only if they attack us first)

GOP: We were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists.

DEM: Yes, but not by Saddam Hussein. (goal post moved to terrorists who attack first from Iraq)

GOP: Hussein was one of the leaders in State-sponsored terror as far back as 1990 and as recently as March 2003.

DEM: Yes, but he didn't sponsor Al Qaeda. (goal post moved to Iraq plus Al Qaeda)

GOP: Many Al Qaeda representatives trained in Iraq and trained Iraqis in terrorist tactics.

DEM: Yes, but Hussein is contained - he can't do anything. (goal shifted to international containment of terrorism-not elimination)

GOP: While contained Saddam has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and sponsored the killing of countless Israelis. He would kill Americans in great numbers, if given the opportunity.

DEM: Yes, but our allies won't support us. (goal post moved from containment to containment as agreed upon by the UN)

GOP: We have a coalition of dozens of countries who DO support us, who are not receiving bribes from Iraq.

DEM: Yes, but...but...GEORGE BUSH IS A LIAR! AND HE SMELLS BAD AND HIS MOTHER DRESSES HIM FUNNY! [sigh]

When you have no defensible position, your only defense is to make baseless personal attacks. When those attacks are parroted by a pliant media, then non-rigorous voters (who are not consumed with political research) believe them. When the truth is pointed out (Swift Boat Vets, for example), sensible people react sensibly, and insensitive people say, "MORE LIES" instead of "MOORE LIES."

The reelection of President Bush gives me hope that truth will eventually prevail over personal attack. There are plenty of heady, important issues to discuss, and many ways to discuss them. Stooping to grade-school name calling is worse than pointless or counter-productive, it is treasonous.

{Aslan: Russell, your "goal post" demonstration was brilliant. In addition, I think the "...and insensitive people say, 'MORE LIES' instead of 'MOORE LIES'" might be one of the better lines of commentary I have read in a while. That said, even the utter depravity of the Carville left in their program of character assassination falls short of treason - except when they provide aid and comfort to the enemy, which they do on a regular basis with the politicization of the war.}