What’s the Matter with America? Part II

In the late Seventies, Jerry Falwell brought us the “Moral Majority.” Before then, of course, we were all immoral hedonists, Hell bent on finding pleasure at every turn. Well, at least I was. Damn, I still am.

So, what is the “Moral Majority?”  Well, this was their platform:

Outlawing abortion in all cases.

Opposition to recognition and acceptance of homosexual acts.

Opposition to the ERA amendment and to SALT.

Enforcement of traditional view of family life.

Censorship of media that promote “anti-family” agenda.

Well, let’s check this out in a little more depth. Did they take a position on taxes? No. Business regulation? Zip. Import/export ratio? Nada. Employment. Zilch. Energy policy? Not a chance. Illegal immigration? Why bother. Economic conditions? Hell, no!

Military? SALT? Well, damn! We can’t reduce the number of nukes, can we? We gotta be able to kill mass quantities of Ruskies!

So, here we are, America. We are all tangled up in a web of self-defeating positions on issues that truly matter little, in real life. The “Moral Majority” position are as relevant to the average American as whether or not Lindsay gets out of jail, Levi has boinked another girl or if Brittany wears panties.

In other words, not a damned thing.

We are a better people that this. Truly. We have always been a better people than this.

Well, maybe not, but we should be.

Outlaw all abortions? Tell that to a fourteen year old that has been raped.

Homosexual acts? Ah, all of the same are practiced by heterosexuals.

Equal rights for women? It should be a given.

Reduce nukes? We have enough to destroy the Earth many times over.

Traditional family life? What did Ozzie actually do all day?

Censorship? What about the First Amendment?

These are the issues that that should be important to the average American? Healthcare, jobs, tax rates and equal rights are unimportant, but these topics are the ones we should be focused on?

What ever happened to the idealism of the Sixties?

(Part III tomorrow)

William Stephenson Clark


Filed under Liberal Government

29 responses to “What’s the Matter with America? Part II

  1. paulasayles

    Does anyone remember that Ozzie and Harriet spawned a child that was, not to be unkind, pretty messed up and died young? It could be that the problems Ricky had were in no way related to his upbringing. But we really don’t know, do we? And we want to emulate that?

    My question is why do so many people want to live in a fantasy world instead of making this world as good as it can be and appreciating the good it has to offer?

  2. With the current system of being opposed if your party is out of power so ‘they’ don’t score any political points or get any credit, how do we begin?

    As Will says in the thread header we concentrate on what isn’t a problem while ignoring what is. Should we have a long discussion about where our First Lady goes for vacation? That should ensure we continue our division of thinking and avoid any possibility of identifying our problems or searching for solutions.

    OK now, sides chosen? Let’s argue. We knew before we began who thought what and that by the second time we posted ‘our side’ we’d need to get in some kind of poke at the opposition’s ‘side.’ How long will it take us to ignore the original topic (which was stupid anyway) and just call each other names, get down and dirty?

    You see, it happens in the blogosphere and it happens in Congress too. It has almost become a way of life. This is the way adults behave and the example they set for our children. We excuse our poor behavior because it’s no different than everyone else. I have to wonder if we remember our mothers asking us about jumping off that cliff if everyone else was?

    Maybe all the presidents we elected were good men and had some good ideas. Maybe even all the people we elect to Congress are also good people with good ideas — kinda like all of us are pretty decent sorts and if we stop denigrating for long enough to look we could discover that.

    Probably if we paused long enough we would learn the only way we find a winner is to realize we can’t begin by declaring the other side the loser.

  3. The moral majority.

    This, imo, contributed to our current situation of choosing sides and being in opposition. I think our country is being taken down by religious extremists.

    Our morals can not be legislated. We are a nation of laws, not sins. If religion has to be enforced, policed or dictated, it has failed. It’s a personal choice and doesn’t have much meaning if it’s not your choice.

    The U.S. is not going to be a Christian theocracy, overturning Roe v Wade is not going to be a solution to our challenges, and arming every citizen to the nth degree isn’t the answer either. Isn’t it time we let go of the arguments centered around the 2nd amendment and Roe v Wade, and just accept both as settled law? People can have arms, people can make their own health care decisions.

  4. tosmarttobegop

    Everyone has morals, but they are not always the same or the same things.

    I think it was Socrates who said, “Perverse is the one thing you will not do!”.

    Either he meant that you will not do perversion or that you define what is a perversion.
    Generally the subject is thought of in reference to sex, but it also is about anything that you think is an offense.

    Out of what you think is acceptable or the moral think to do.
    Morals do define the society and often are used to judge other societies.
    For me it is more important to live by my morals then it is to judge others morals.

    Kind of falls to what dad told me about my rights, “Your rights begin at the tip of your nose and everyone else’s begin and yours ends at the tip of your nose”.

  5. itolduso

    In my opinion, ALL laws are written in response to SOMEONE”S morals. The argument is really, whose? To use two extreme examples: Abortion is morally repugnant to some, so they atempt to legislate (or outlaw) it. Insurance companies or medical providers such as drug companies making a profit is morally repugnic to others, hence they try to legislate or regulate it out of existence. Both are “moral” issues to their respective sponsors. Maybe not great examples, but maybe you can get what I am getting at.
    What we have to do is actually listen to the other side, instead of just blowing them off.

    • I know many liberals and I don’t know even one who is against medical providers or drug companies making a profit. I know many who supported true health-care reform including a public option, and not a single one of them is against those companies making a profit.

      That’s an exaggeration you deserve to be called on! That kind of rhetoric adds to not being able to listen to the other side.

      • itolduso

        I have heard many progressives state that. Just my observation. Do I have a link, no. Sorry. Not trying to make a point about the health care debate, but about “legislating morality”. I will pick something different, that I can provide a link to.

      • I personally am against the obscene profits made, but that doesn’t equate in any way to being against those companies making profits.

        I also find it offensive the amounts of money other BIG industries pay out to the top echelon.

  6. itolduso

    In addition, at least in my opinion, the less moral a society becomes, the more need for law, and the more possibility of tyranny or anarchy

    • indypendent

      Iran is a moral society run by their clerics and you think they are not a tyranny or anarchy?

      Don’t be fooled for one second to think that just the fact they are run by Muslims is the problem – the Christians are just as capable of tyranny or anarchy if given the chance.

  7. tosmarttobegop

    What ever happened to the idealism of the Sixties?

    Boy when I hunted up the “Has anybody here seen my old friend Bobby”
    It cause me to think about that, what ever happened?

    Churchill once said that if you are not a Liberal in your twenties you have no heart.
    If you are not a Conservative in your forties you have no mind.

    I guess another way to put it is what Irving Kristol said in explaining why he is the father of Modern Neo-Conservatives. “ I was a Liberal till I was hit between the eyes by reality!”.

    • When Churchill used the word conservative it was modified by fiscal, not social. Conservative changed, and it wasn’t a improvement.

    • “What ever happened to the idealism of the Sixties?”

      A. We got older with more responsibilities (and increasingly tired);

      B. The draft was eliminated;

      C. The “low hanging fruit” of causes which were the subjects of what I recall the focus of much of the activism was picked through a combination of legislation, executive implementation, and judicial decision; and

      D. The “other side” studied, contemplated, and turned many of the arguments and approaches around on the activists.

    • paulasayles

      How ironic! I was conservative until I saw the suffering of the working people around me and how the system compounded it.

  8. itolduso

    Being continaully stoned, unwashed, and too busy communing with nature (or lost in the poetry of Jim Morrison) to get a job became too hard to explain too our kids. 🙂

  9. itolduso

    of course, I speak only generically!

  10. For perspective on what we fear today…

    • This is the first reply to this YouTube video:

      “Glenn Beck as a younger man watched this and did not understand satire and based his whole life off him.”

      Some of the others are equally interesting.

  11. indypendent

    When it comes to the abortion debate, I think the Moral Majority (Jerry Falwell’s group which is now known as the Religious Right) used the whipping boy of abortion to gain political power – thanks to Ronald Reagan who was the Republican president that welcomed Religious Right to a place at the adults table.

    This group was a ready-set, reliable group of voters that Reagan and other Republicans have used as guarnteed votes to win elections.

    But I did not see too many of these self-professing Religious Righties get their panties in a bunch when abortions were performed in hospitals under varying procedure names – usually a D&C.

    The only difference was Roe v Wade brought abortion front and center and that was the start of the free-standing abortion clinics we see currently.

    So, are the Religious Right truly against abortions or do they just want it to just go underground or hidden from view by a different name?

    But the Religious Right all smugly think they are saving babies but what are they really doing except building their own political power base?

    And now the Religious Right have moved on from abortion to gay marriage and illegal immigration as their favorite whipping boys.

  12. indypendent

    I’ll make a deal with the Religious Right – when they clean up their own backyards, then they can start on mine.

  13. I also abhor abortions, the fact that they happen and more than that the fact that women are put in the position of making such a horrible decision. I would truly like birth control in the water system. You want to be pregnant you drink bottled water only. Or something that extreme.

    Several thoughts always come to mind that can’t be ignored. Just as you say Indy, abortions have always happened and would continue if they were once again illegal — for those of means in a safe place and called something different, for those without the means in a less than safe place. So I always realize those one issue voters really just want abortions to be illegal again and put us exactly back where we were — safe for the women of means and unsafe for those who are poor.

    I also pause and wonder why anyone would want the woman who doesn’t want to continue the pregnancy for whatever reason to be a mother. Adoption doesn’t answer all these dilemmas.

    It’s a horrible thing and doesn’t belong in the civil arena at all. Everyone answers for their own actions and those who want abortion to be illegal again are sticking their noses where it doesn’t belong unless it’s their pregnancy. It’s just like their ability to ignore the blastocysts that are saved from research by being destroyed in the incinerator out back.

    No one is going to stop abortions. It’s a matter between a woman, her doctor and her god.

    • indypendent

      There would be alot less abortions if all men would either cap it or step up to the plate and be responsible.

      I have actually heard men say that it is the woman’s fault for getting pregnant.

      Huh? Last time I took a biology class (and correct me if I am wrong) it takes sperm to fertilize an egg.

      And all the preaching in the world is not going to change that fact – and the fact that some men will never take responsibility.