The Price Of Being Who We Are
As the Sanford thing unfolded yesterday, I was “itchy.” I just knew this was gonna leave a mark somehow. Last night, my wife and I sat in a small teriyaki place, a place that always has one TV on CNN and one on ESPN, having something akin to dinner. CNN was having a great deal of fun at the expense of social conservatives. Sometime during Larry King they ran of litany of “the fallen.” Oh sure, John Edwards and Bill Clinton flashed by, but they dwelled on Sanford, Gingrich, and other Republicans. But then it is not surprising from CNN. (I could not get near MSNBC, I just knew it would be vile.)
But scanning the news this morning has come close to breaking my spirit. The daily headlines I get from the Washington Times, a purposefully conservative newspaper, were lead by this:
Social conservatives fall from moral high ground
Republicans retreat from values claims
That, dear friends hurts a lot coming from that source. Two thoughts cross my mind. The first is that social conservatives, in a sense, deserve this. We do attempt to stand on high moral ground. And while we hold a religious belief that relies on grace, the world does not share that belief. In such a circumstance, when we stand on that high ground, we are obligated to live up to it.
I have said in the church for years that the scandals that plague TV preachers do the cause of Christianity real harm. The same applies in this situation. As morally based political activists, our cause is hurt tremendously by scandals like this. We are now in the unfortunate and unappealing situation of having to throw Sanford under the bus. At a time when he and his family have much need, and all our instincts as people of God is to give it, we have no choice but to denounce him as a part of our movement.
This is why, much as he has worked to regain our trust and redeem himself, there are limits to how high Newt Gingrich can be allowed to climb again. This is also why, as appealing as she appears. there are limits to Sarah Palin too. While the issue of her daughter is just her daughter and not her, and her daighter made heroic choices in the face of the circumstance, it taints, and we cannot at this juncture afford even a taint.
This is why we have to exercise much care, much more than we historically have, in who we choose to lead and represent us.
The second point that comes to mind is that this headline may be the result of Republican infighting. With Huckabee’s antics and Palin’s divisiveness, social conservatives have been under much fire inside the party since the last cycle. It would not surprise me if fiscal and defense conservatives were using this scandal to shore up their positions in the party.
Such is unseemly and simply cannot be tolerated. We cannot win anything unless all three legs of the movement can restore the coalition. Any Republican using this scandal sides with the liberal Democrats.
Prayers for the Sanford family and prayers for the party.
Postscript: Jonathon Martin has a more sober analysis of the damage this causes Republicans. Although, his lack of mention of Romney as one of the new generation of leaders is puzzling. And Dan Gilgoff piles on.
Posted in Issues, Understanding Religion | 5 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
CarlH on 25 Jun 2009 at 9:07 am #
I tire quickly of all the supposed analysis and commentary on these sad stories–especially those who use them as nothing more than ad hominem attacks on conservative principles and values. The only reason that “values” conservatives are supposedly vulnerable because of such incidents is precisely because they actually believe there are values and standards in the first place. The shallowness of the understanding, or willful denial, of the human condition among those “enlightened” ones who give a pass to Democrats involved in similar peccadilloes (or worse ones, for that matter) never ceases to amaze me. Having basically abandoned the idea of fundamental values (except, of course, their own supreme value of “tolerance,” at least in the sense of putting up with and shutting up about whatever vile or despicable thing someone else chooses to do–and often flaunt, so long as it is the “correct” kind of tolerance), they pin the label hypocrite on anyone who fails to live up to any standards they personally don’t espouse or, often, adhere to themselves. Moreover, they somehow feel justified in ridiculing anyone found in such a “fallen state” (which is “fallen,” apparently, only for those who still believe in standards, of course)–especially if they may have the audacity to claim that there is the possibility of personal redemption. The “theology” of People Magazine, Entertainment Tonight, MSNBC et al. is so much easier on the conscience!
coltakashi on 25 Jun 2009 at 11:55 am #
The story line in the mainstream media seems to be that anyone who aspires to champion traditional Judeo-Christian sexual morality is asking to be struck with the lightning of exposure of hypocritical weakness. The corollary is that only Republicans or Conservatives deserve to suffer this punishment for intolerance of a looser standard of sexual morality.
It is clear that the general run of news media do not relish revealing adultery by their own heroes on the left wing. The hypocrisy of a Spitzer who prosecuted prostitution while patronizing it on the side, or of an Edwards who proclaimed his own virtue for standing by his cancer-stricken wife while drowning his sorrows with a campaign worker, were facts that the major news media seem to have tried to avoid reporting as long as they could.
The most telling case was the rallying around Bill Clinton when he was impeached for lying under oath (the crime that Scooter Libby went to jail for), claiming that lying about sexual misconduct, to the courts, to counsel for a legal adversary, and to the nation at large, was excusable if it grew out of adultery. The most hypocritical aspect of this was that the same members of Congress who went down to the White House to show their support for lying adulterers were the most enthusiastic in their attacks on the Navy for allowing lewd conduct (though no proven crimes) at its Tailhook Convention. While hypocrisy that demonstrates the victory of one’s own libido over one’s rational faculties is an all too common human flaw, the hypocrisy that trumpets adultery by the Commander-in-Chief while it excoriates it when (allegedly) committed by a Naval officer is a deliberate act of calculation that makes common cause with the powerful and sacrifices the politically weak as props in a morality play.
The fact that elected officials are supposed to implement the will of the people on issues like same-sex marriage and regulation of abortion makes their own beliefs and behavior an important concern for voters. Only those who have personal integrity and who actually support traditional morality can be relied upon to craft laws that maintain a congenial environment for those citizens whose religion significantly guides their lives. Politicians who are exposed as hypocrites on this issue compound their betrayal by insisting on holding onto their power. The chairwoman of the South Carolina Republicans this morning refused to countenance Sanford resigning. She is intent on her party retaining a temporary position of power while abandoning real moral authority. Both she and Sanford ought to join the Democratic Party, where the philosophy of power above morality has full sway.
Doug King on 25 Jun 2009 at 3:37 pm #
Some great insights have been expressed here Thanks!
If I’m honest with myself, I must admit that Republicans are no better than Democrats in terms of personal morality. Some do argue that the likes of Ensign and Sanford are bigger hypocrites than the likes of Edwards and Spitzer because they targeted voters who believe in traditional morality. But that’s comparing kettles to pots when neither is wanted.
Since sexuality is fundamental to human nature, no elected official of any political party is or ever will be immune to the temptations of “peccadilloes” which is a euphemism for blatant betrayal of one’s spouse and family. If there’s a long-term cure for such scandals, it lies in reducing the power and money and glamor of political office.
The Republican brand has been badly tarnished. But I see no better alternative at the moment.
Jerald on 27 Jun 2009 at 7:53 am #
John, you needn’t be surprised that Jonathan Martin left out Mitt’s name.
I actively followed Martin’s “reporting” on Republicans during the last cycle and he had no love for Mitt. Always negative spin, always snarky comments, and you could hear him wince in pain when ever he was forced to make even a fair post about Romney due to the need to fake appearing balanced or because the story was too big and left him no choice.
We can all look forward to more of the same from Mr. Martin during the next cycle. I just hope they don’t put him in charge of reporting on the Republicans again.
John Schroeder on 27 Jun 2009 at 8:05 am #
Jerald:
Lowell and I met Martin at Romney’s “Faith in America” speech at the Bush Library – he is not quite as bad as all that.
But more importantly, don’t look for him in the next cycle – he is a “B-lister” at best at this point. His performance during the last cycle was abysmal more for his lack of contacts than any bias. By the time it showed on his blog it was old news. We would have ignored him altogether except he was the Republcan primary beat guy on “the” political sheet of the election. I don’t think he’ll enjoy that position next time.