# How did the right-wing take over the moral and religious high ground? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 25, 2004, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592 "2004-11-25T03:13:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/41 "2004-12-03T03:01:02Z")
> [@Muad'Dib](#): > > I love listening to NPR, despite their left-wing bent I think that it is still a great source of news and entertainment. One thing that I have heard repeated many times over the last few weeks is a flabbergasted wondering how the right-wing could have so solidly taken control of religion and morality. > The answer is simple. The left gave it away. I think the actual issue is the one best espoused by Sir Arthur C. Clarke: “One of the greatest tragedies in human history was the hijacking of morality by religion.” ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/42 "2004-12-03T04:59:29Z")
**BobLibDem** : I read the article you linked to from _Governing Magazine_. It made the point that both races in South Carolina have used racial issues to their advantage to get reelected and that these issues are often symbolic: > [@](#): > > Both sides can help themselves politically by making a fuss about racially charged matters, whether these are substantive or, more often, symbolic disputes about pictures of Strom Thurmond, or where to display the Confederate flag. The article is, however, a year and a half old and the particular quotations you posted contains dated statistics. Your own post contradicts itself: > [@](#): > > Republican successes in recent elections are due to a perfect storm of **single issue voting** and southern (sic) white racism. (bold type added) If they are voting based on white racism and they are voting based on a single issue, then that issue is racism. That can’t be adding to it other issues such as gay marriage and abortion. If those are included, then their voting choices are no longer based on a single issue. Further, you have excluded any African-Americans who voted Republican. They _do_ exist. And you have excluded liberal Republicans, non-racist voters, independents, and so forth. > [@](#): > > **BobLibDem** : …Ask any red state voter why he votes Republican… And about 1/3 will say, “I didn’t.” At least that’s what would happen in South Carolina. Just how “red” is South Carolina? See for yourself: Funny. South Carolina didn’t look [this](http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/SC/P/00/index.html) way on those election night maps. Black and white thinking and red and blue thinking have a lot in common. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2004, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/43 "2004-12-03T06:08:49Z")
> [@](#): > > **Maud Dib** : One thing that I have heard repeated many times over the last few weeks is a flabbergasted wondering how the right-wing could have so solidly taken control of religion and morality. I doubt if anyone from the left would have expressed this sentiment in quite those terms. I think that **Orbifold** expressed it fairly: > [@](#): > > The real question is why is the right wing of American politics is dominating the **discourse** of religion in politics. And it makes sense to me that if one “wing” believes more strongly in separation of church and state, they are less likely to make their own religious beliefs an issue. Liberals do vote according to moral issues, but not necessarily what the religious right labels as a “moral issue” or from the same point of view. I do see same sex marriage as a moral issue, for example. I think that it would be immoral for me to deny anyone the right to marry whomever they love. I honestly and truthfully think that it is **immoral** to make that decision for someone else. I think that it is **immoral** to freeze or destroy non-viable embryonic stem cells when they might be used to regrow skin on a living burned child or repair spinal cord injuries on a suffering human being. I think that casual abuse of the environment is immoral. > [@](#): > > **Maud** : Young people who grew up in the aftermath of WWII found themselves against everyone and everything. Against Civil Rights? Against women’s rights? Against environmental protection? Against peace? Against multi-culturalism? > [@](#): > > These kids were not called they disgusting, ignorant, slovenly fools that they were by the left-wing establishment, but instead they were labeled idealists and dynamic, who would bring about an exciting new world of change. What do you think became of the hippies, Maud? ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/44 "2004-12-07T04:20:15Z")
I guess we won’t find out where the hippies went…maybe if you’re not a conservative by 40, you have no brain? :dubious: I’ve been reading George Lakoff, a linguist/political theorist, who addresses the morality-takeover issue. His position is that the right coopted moral values through “framing” - choosing language and terms that resonated with large numbers of people, and just as importantly, cast their policies in such a positive light (“Tax Relief” for massive social program defunding) that it was hard to speak out against them (who wants to be anti-“relief”?) Lakoff organizes the left/right dichotomy conveniently (maybe too much so) along the “Nation as Family” metaphor in his paper [Metaphor, Morality, and Politics](http://wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html). Basically, liberals hold to the “nurturing” model, where caring for others is the most important moral value; conservatives hold to the “strict” model, where obedience to principle is the most important moral value. If you buy his thesis, the right capitalized on many people’s feeling that America lacked strictness and absolutes. Having access to lots of money and unafraid of imposing orthodoxy, they built a large and obedient machine to mold and unify public opinion…while the left was busy following its tenet of taking each individual, group, and issue on its own terms, leaving them hopelessly splintered and unable to get together on much of anything. The liberal task then would be to redefine and reframe “moral values” in a way that makes it clear that they must include caring, justice, and providing for the common good. Ie: that the nurturing nation-family is at least as morally good as - or better than - the strict one. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/45 "2004-12-07T04:41:19Z")
The right has the religious high ground, but the left still has the moral high ground. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/46 "2004-12-07T04:49:58Z")
Not if you’re a conservative. To them “morality” (per Lakoff again) simply consists in disciplining oneself and others to adhere to their own self-interest and not to do evil. (Evil here is not the product of social ills, but a root cause that cannot be explained or understood. Lakoff’s liberal model does not even use the word “evil.”) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/47 "2004-12-07T10:22:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The right has the religious high ground, but the left still has the moral high ground. Except that if polls are to be believed, “values” voters selected the candidiate on the right. So the question, if your belief is correct, would seem to be, “How can the left persuade a majority of voters that it ‘still has the religious high ground?’” ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/48 "2004-12-07T16:19:48Z")
Actually, the Right has always _claimed_ the religio-moral high ground. **Beware of Doug** quotes a very good description. While worrying about caring for others, protecting everyone’s rights and providing all sorts of aid programs, the Left pretty much allowed moral orthodoxy to become the province of the Right, because it WAS interested in it… …and the Right was delighted to find out that for a plurality of the people, “morality” is NOT about “love thy neighbor, do unto others”, but rather about “Thou Shalt Not”. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/49 "2004-12-07T20:08:31Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > …and the Right was delighted to find out that for a plurality of the people, “morality” is NOT about “love thy neighbor, do unto others”, but rather about “Thou Shalt Not”. …with the extra proviso, “Except for me,” as this example (stolen from Atrios) demonstrates– [Yesterday:](http://www.grassleyworks.com/grassley/wrapper.jsp?PID=4090-69&CID=4090-100604A) > [@](#): > > Bush introduced Mike and Sharla Hintz, a couple from Clive, whom he said benefited from his tax plan. > > … Mike Hintz, a First Assembly of God youth pastor, said the tax cuts also gave him additional money to use for health care. > > He said he supports Bush’s values. > > “The American people are starting to see what kind of leader President Bush is. People know where he stands,” he said. > > “Where we are in this world, with not just the war on terror, but with the war with our culture that’s going on, I think we need a man that is going to be in the White House like President Bush, that’s going to stand by what he believes.” [Today:](http://www.theiowachannel.com/news/3976822/detail.html) > [@](#): > > A Des Moines youth pastor is charged with the sexual exploitation of a child. > KCCI learned that the married father of four recently turned himself in to Johnston police. > > Rev. Mike Hintz was fired from the First Assembly of God Church, located at 2725 Merle Hay Road, on Oct. 30. Hintz was the youth pastor there for three years. > > Police said he started an affair with a 17-year-old in the church youth group this spring. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/50 "2004-12-08T03:46:00Z")
I don’t know what that’s supposed to prove, **rjung**. It’s a sad fact that some people in positions of influence and authority sometimes turn out to be deeply morally flawed. Hell, some of them turn out to be nothing but disgusting perverts. 'Course, I’m talking here about ex-Democratic Congressman [Mel Reynolds.](http://www.cnn.com/US/9611/07/reynolds.indict/) Now, it’s worth noting here that, in your example, Mr. Hintz was fired from his church. Mr. Reynolds, on the other hand, was given a job with the Rainbow Coalition/PUSH organization upon his release from prison. He was also made community services director of a Baptist church, where he may have opportunities to interact with young people again. Intellectual honesty would require your outrage be directed in this direction also. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/51 "2004-12-08T06:01:01Z")
The failings of religious people always tickle my perverse fancy, **Mr. Moto,** for reasons you can easily guess at. And I won’t even begin to try and understand the rationale behind the leadership of PUSH, for other obvious reasons. On the other hand, I don’t recall offhand Mr. Reynolds making any big stink about being a harbringer of moral values, or of winning any elections based on his moral principles. The story kinda loses its final dose of irony without that, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/52 "2004-12-08T11:10:09Z")
Perhaps he did. I’ll have to look it up. What election did Mr. Hintz ever win? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/53 "2004-12-08T11:12:21Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > And I won’t even begin to try and understand the rationale behind the leadership of PUSH, for other obvious reasons. Why not? You make attempts to do so with others all the time, when such attempts serve to advance your political points. I think the obvious reason here is quite obvious, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/54 "2004-12-08T16:54:46Z")
A number of reasons. First off, because the Right is usually correct and the Left usually wrong. Obviously. 😉 Another reason is that it is often the Left who tries to assert that “religion and politics don’t mix”, or “you can’t legislate morality”. Thus the Right inherits the religiously-based arguments by default. Then when the Left wants to argue in favor of some social policy, if they try to assert that we should do what they want because it is what God wants, they wind up looking hypocritical or stupid [or both.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=290296) Gerry Ferraro famously remarked that she didn’t believe Reagan was a Christian, because “his social policies are so unfair”. Seems a trifle close to “mixing religion and politics”, at least to me. Or consider the reluctance of some on the Left to unambiguously condemn the actions of the Soviet Union. Most reasonable people, comparing the US and the USSR, conclude that the actions of the USA, while certainly not above reproach in every respect, are miracles of light compared with the repression of the USSR. Witness the outrage of the Left when Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as “an evil empire”. Most right-wing or centrist folks would regard this as an obvious truism. But the Left went nuts screaming that “you can’t say that sort of thing! War-monger!” Etc. The same sort of reaction occurred to Bush’s “axis of evil” remark. And it seems most of the objections to the invasion of **Afghanistan** came from the Left. If you can’t see why it might be a moral position to want to arrest the person who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, it is going to be tough making us believe that you are really much more morally correct than evil evil Bush. Add to that the perceptions by many that the drive to [marginalize religious speech](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140545,00.html) as second-class speech is coming from the Left. It’s going to be tough to claim the religious high-ground while you are trying to silence religious folks. Another reason is that many of the scandals of the 90s showed up how much of the alleged values of the Left was based on principle, and how much was expediency. Clinton was supposed to be of the party supporting women’s rights, but turned out to be a serial harasser of women. Then many major women’s rights representative on the Left made it clear they were willing to overlook behavior on his part that they would have universally condemned if he had been a Republican. Contrast the treatment of Paula Jones and Juanita Broadderick with Anita Hill. It seems that too much of the attitude of the Left was based, not on an unflinching commitment to the rights of women in the workplace or evidence, but simply on whose ox is being gored. Or consider that Clinton promised "the most ethical administration in history’, and then continued along the lines of petty graft and a flexible approach to the truth that characterized most of his public career. I suspect most of the explanation lies in the fact that the pendulum has swung back. Most of the issues of, say, the 60s were fairly clear morally. Segregation, most people came to agree, is a moral wrong. Women **were** badly treated in many cases. And so forth. But those clear-cut issues have been addressed, by and large. We are far from perfect in our society, but Jim Crow is dead and the institutionalized racism that kept people down has been removed. The mistake of the Left (in my view) is that they continued to use the same rhetoric of unequivocable moral certainty on issues that are far less clear-cut. Segregation is a terrible thing, we all agree. But affirmative action, it can be argued, is also a violation of the principle of “equal before the law” that we were supposed to use in removing segregation. And therefore if I get called a racist for refusing to endorse affirmative action, I don’t consider that you can stake a claim to the moral high ground of equality. Poverty is a bad thing, certainly. But it is hardly immoral to ask if there might be factors causing you to be poor beyond “the Man is keeping me down”. And pointing out that having a couple of kids before you are eighteen, and not being quite sure who sired them, is likely to correlate with a lifetime of food stamps and minimum wage jobs, is not really a position that forfeits the moral high ground. Certainly there are religous folks on the Left, and morally committed ones as well. But when it turns out that among the Left are people claiming to be an objective news organization, who published forged documents in order to attack their political enemies, it is natural to lose sight of the moral and religious folks on the Left in favor of the obvious scoundrels and hypocrites. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/55 "2004-12-08T17:59:55Z")
Boy, **Shodan** when you lay it on, you lay it on _thick_! You present a parade of right-wing truisms as though they were undisputed fact, and then derive your conclusions therefrom. But as Sportin’ Life sings, “It ain’t neccessarily so…” Where to begin, so much hogwash, so little time… > [@](#): > > …Witness the outrage of the Left when Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as “an evil empire”. Most right-wing or centrist folks would regard this as an obvious truism. But the Left went nuts screaming that “you can’t say that sort of thing! War-monger!” Etc… Well, yes. I have no doubt that you regard that as an obvious truism. Quite my point, actually. Do you look with benign tolerance, as did St. Ronnie of Bakersfield, on the bloody and brutal dictatorships of Central America? Nasty bunch of boys, more’s the pity, but thank God, at least they aren’t \*Commie \* murderers! If they were Commies, then we would have to regard them as evil, but they aren’t, so they get a pass. > [@](#): > > …The same sort of reaction occurred to Bush’s “axis of evil” remark… Why, yes, now that you mention it, that _was_ a spectacularly stupid thing to say. > [@](#): > > …And it seems most of the objections to the invasion of Afghanistan came from the Left. If you can’t see why it might be a moral position to want to arrest the person who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, it is going to be tough making us believe that you are really much more morally correct than evil evil Bush… You guys have developed this habit lately of declaring that your political opponents arguments are whatever you say they are. Like GeeDubya stating that people who disagree with his “policy” (to be polite) believe as they do because they don’t believe that the Arab world is capable of self-governance. At least you are exposed to enough of our arguments to know that such is, to put it mildly, wide of the mark. Our objections is that the “policy” are stupid, brutal, and futile. But true to The Leader, you present the argument against invading Afghanistan as denying the morality of pursuing ObL, which you simply have to know is a crock. Personally, I don’t think the Taliban could have handed over ObL if they had _wanted_ to. But it is hard to argue with such a gloriously successful mission, especially when the term “success” is so pliable, that it can be molded to fit whatever circumstances arise. The same sort of pliability applies when praising our glorious ally, Pakistan, always in the front line in the pursuit of freedom and democracy. Mmmmm, yes. Quite. > [@](#): > > …Clinton was supposed to be of the party supporting women’s rights, but turned out to be a serial harasser of women… Clinton was a serial _seducer_ of women. He stands convicted, in my view, of being a horn-dog. Contrast and compare to say, Newt Gangrene, who brought divorce papers to his wife in the hospital so he could marry his assistant and then cheat on _her_. Sauce for the goose, as it were. Women’s rights doesn’t mean immunity from seduction, it means immunity from coercion. If you need the difference explained to you, ask elsewhere, I haven’t the time. > [@](#): > > …Contrast the treatment of Paula Jones and Juanita Broadderick with Anita Hill… Ah, the fair and virginal Ms. Jones, the Heidi of the Ozarks, cruelly oppressed by the depraved Gov Clinton. None of her allegations held water, you know that, right? Tell me you are at least this well informed, that I need not lower my argument any further. And Ms. Brodderick? If you can substantiate any of this, do so. Or content yourself with slinging it about as though it were accepted history, when it is nothing more than empty slur. > [@](#): > > …And pointing out that having a couple of kids before you are eighteen, and not being quite sure who sired them, is likely to correlate with a lifetime of food stamps and minimum wage jobs, is not really a position that forfeits the moral high ground… That ripped it. I simply won’t descend low enough even to refute such drivel. Shame on you, will have to do. Whatzamatter, forgot the “welfare queens in Cadillacs”? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/56 "2004-12-08T18:01:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > A number of reasons. And I agree with you (although I would word them differently) on many of them - the left does often assert that religion and politics don’t mix, and that moral correctness is relativistic (thus, you can’t say the Soviet Union was evil, casually, as a truism). However, > [@Shodan](#): > > Another reason is that many of the scandals of the 90s showed up how much of the alleged values of the Left was based on principle, and how much was expediency. If that were true, the right would have no political upper hand with regard to morality. Someone in this thread said the right’s morality was of the “thou shalt not” variety, and while it’s a broad stroke, I tend to agree. But Newt Gingrich had an affair and left his wife who was battling cancer. Bob Livingston had affairs. George W. Bush hid a drunk-driving arrest, and excused his behavior because it was for “his daughters’ sake” (way to teach them about personal responsibility). Dick Cheney’s had drunk-driving arrests, and probably has some Halliburton blood on his hands. Mouth-pieces Rush Limbaugh and Jimmy Swaggart are moral centipedes. Yet the right does have more political capital in the morality area. I think we owe that to simple cognitive dissonance. [nitpick]Your Clinton example claims he was a serial harasser. I disagree. He’s had affairs, but I don’t think he harassed anybody - your conclusion - that it undermines his claims of supporting women’s rights - hinges on that perception.[/nitpick] ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/57 "2004-12-08T21:24:31Z")
> [@bup](#): > > [nitpick]Your Clinton example claims he was a serial harasser. I disagree. He’s had affairs, but I don’t think he harassed anybody - your conclusion - that it undermines his claims of supporting women’s rights - hinges on that perception.[/nitpick] You do know that he settled with Ms. Jones, do you not? (And was disbarred for lying under oath, etc.) But the undermining of his claim to support women’s rights does not depend entirely on his behavior, but also on the behavior of those on the Left who claimed to speak on behalf of women - feminists and the like. They were all eager to excuse or overlook the behavior, or to attack the victim as “sleazy” or trailer trash who ought to be grateful for the chance to prostitute herself to an advocate of abortion rights. If any of the NOW types ever offered that Anita Hill should have been grateful for Clarence Thomas’ alleged attentions, I must have missed it. (Leaving aside for the moment the issue that Anita Hill lied about her case, and Paula Jones did not.) The problem for the Left is the double standard. As is often the case, it isn’t just the scandal that causes you trouble - it is the attempt to cover it up, or minimize or excuse it. Bush’s DWI, for instance, is hardly a triviality. No one is suggesting, however, that it was, or that it should be overlooked because he has done so much for women’s rights (or whatever). And even the way that it was brought to the public attention (similar to some of the other examples you cited, such as Livingstone’s affair) was done in such a way as to minimize the moral credit of the Left. It was fairly obvious that the Democratic activist who sat on it for a while and then dredged it up at the last minute before the election acted as he did not because he gave a tinker’s damn about drunk driving, but to affect the election. It then went down roughly as did the CBS forgeries, which they also timed to coincide with the “Fortunate Son” campaign by the DNC. Then when it became clear how sleazy the whole CBS operation was, it became the opposite of what they had hoped for - the debate became about the morally indefensible actions by the Left and 60 Minutes, rather than anything Bush was alleged to have done. Part of that was politicking, no doubt. Part of it, however, was the moral posturing of the Left being revealed for what it was - simple sleaze, and done for no other reason than to get a political opponent. Same pattern, in fact, as was revealed in the contrast between the treatment of Clarence Thomas and Clinton. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/58 "2004-12-08T21:39:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You do know that he settled with Ms. Jones, do you not? (And was disbarred for lying under oath, etc.) Sure. I also believe he could have beaten her outright in court, but wanted the thing over with. I’m sure you don’t believe it, but any proof you have would require you to know what was in his mind. > [@Shodan](#): > > But the undermining of his claim to support women’s rights does not depend entirely on his behavior, but also on the behavior of those on the Left who claimed to speak on behalf of women - feminists and the like. They were all eager to excuse or overlook the behavior, or to attack the victim as “sleazy” or trailer trash who ought to be grateful for the chance to prostitute herself to an advocate of abortion rights. A bit overstated, but I get your point. > [@Shodan](#): > > If any of the NOW types ever offered that Anita Hill should have been grateful for Clarence Thomas’ alleged attentions, I must have missed it. (Leaving aside for the moment the issue that Anita Hill lied about her case, and Paula Jones did not.) That’s a new one on me. I gotta call ‘cites’ on this. > [@Shodan](#): > > And even the way that it was brought to the public attention (similar to some of the other examples you cited, such as Livingstone’s affair) was done in such a way as to minimize the moral credit of the Left. It was fairly obvious that the Democratic activist who sat on it for a while and then dredged it up at the last minute before the election acted as he did not because he gave a tinker’s damn about drunk driving, but to affect the election. It then went down roughly as did the CBS forgeries, which they also timed to coincide with the “Fortunate Son” campaign by the DNC. Then when it became clear how sleazy the whole CBS operation was, it became the opposite of what they had hoped for - the debate became about the morally indefensible actions by the Left and 60 Minutes, rather than anything Bush was alleged to have done. > > Part of that was politicking, no doubt. Part of it, however, was the moral posturing of the Left being revealed for what it was - simple sleaze, and done for no other reason than to get a political opponent. Same pattern, in fact, as was revealed in the contrast between the treatment of Clarence Thomas and Clinton. **Shodan** , my friend, the ‘George Orwell’ rule of propaganda is that you separate the points that require cognitive dissonance by at least a few posts. You forgot that you had stuff about Whitewater/The Ken Starr Show _in the same post_ as you accused the left of having only politics at heart, and not morals, in scandal-mongering. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/59 "2004-12-08T21:55:22Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Sure. I also believe he could have beaten her outright in court, but wanted the thing over with. I’m sure you don’t believe it, but any proof you have would require you to know what was in his mind. Sure - just as you are sure what was in Ken Starr’s mind. > [@bup](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > If any of the NOW types ever offered that Anita Hill should have been grateful for Clarence Thomas’ alleged attentions, I must have missed it. (Leaving aside for the moment the issue that Anita Hill lied about her case, and Paula Jones did not.) > > That’s a new one on me. I gotta call ‘cites’ on this. You mean the part about Anita Hill lying? I can’t cite a whole book, but read The Real Anita Hill, by David Brock. Yes, I know he later recanted everything he has written, but unfortunately the book is extensively cited and documented. Too well documented, in other words, to be dismissed. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2004, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/60 "2004-12-08T22:04:08Z")
Anti-Abortion, anti-crime, and, currently, the balls to overthrow right-wing governments. If the Democrats don’t address these issues comprehensively, they will continue to lose. The Neo-Cons were once liberals who all but begged Democrats to overthrow authoritarian regimes in the interest of Democracy, like Republicans were trying to do the same with left-wing governments, authoritarian or not. When the Democrats hemmed and hawed, the neos decided to become Republican. After the antics of the Taliban that culminated into 9-11, their views developed a loud resonsnce. The Giuliani Republicans were once Democrats who ultimately believe in law and order over all else. They thought that there was too much coddling of criminals in the justice system, especially if they were Black. The communities, especially the Black communities, can’t afford that coddling for the knuckleheads, as that coddling wind up degrading the communities. Clean the streets first, then take care of other problems. Seeing that Dinkins, despite developing a couple of good programs, acted as if he enjoyed playing tennis more than being Mayor, they ousted him in favor of Giuliani. Also, there is a slight decline in pregnancies and abortions. The Anti-abortion and pro-abstinence groups will of course declare that the declines were because of the pro-abstinence progams in place, despite derisions from others. and they will keep on pushing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592.md?page=4)