# 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:** 19\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/61 "2004-12-09T06:18:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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. :rolleyes: So, even though Brock later tells us that his earlier claims were a bunch of right-wing bullstuff, we should accept the bullstuff and ignore his recantation of the same because…? Why, exactly, other than it undermines your point? ---
**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 9, 2004, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/62 "2004-12-09T11:23:42Z")
Brock is a liar. No question. But the question is whether he was lying then or lying now. I think you’re inclined to believe his current incarnation because he switched to your side. I don’t know, myself, except to note that Hill’s story has been called into question by many others, and they have evidence as well. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/63 "2004-12-09T15:30:29Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > :rolleyes: > > So, even though Brock later tells us that his earlier claims were a bunch of right-wing bullstuff, we should accept the bullstuff and ignore his recantation of the same because…? Because it is extensively cited and documented from the facts presented before the committee. 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 9, 2004, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/64 "2004-12-09T16:15:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because it is extensively cited and documented from the facts presented before the committee. > > Regards, > Shodan What about the part where you said Paula Jones was not lying? And here, you need to show that she was not lying about harrasment, not about sex with Bill. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/65 "2004-12-09T18:02:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because it is extensively cited and documented from the facts presented before the committee. Wow…There were actual citations to things!?! That’s enough to convince me. I know you know that Brock says it was all bullshit and you still don’t care, but it is nonetheless fun to compare how highly you hold this work in comparison to how the author [feels](http://www.randomhouse.com/boldtype/0203/brock/excerpt.html) about it: > [@](#): > > Yet there is a critical distinction between what I thought I was doing—my intentions—and the sloppy, skewed, slanderous material that spilled off my keyboard. I was able to go at the other side like a bloodhound because I believed every word of my reporting was solid and true. For many readers, my inability to take in other points of view was, perversely, the source of my strength as a political writer. I was possessed of “the moral certainty of a young warrior,” as Howard Kurtz would write in a Washington Post profile. I sincerely believed my own propaganda. > > The truth is that with my woefully inadequate training at the Washington Times and the American Spectator, I didn’t know what good reporting was. Like a kid playing with a loaded gun, I didn’t appreciate the difference between a substantiated charge and an unsubstantiated one. The cardinal rule of the journalism profession, that every allegation must have at least two sources before it may be printed, was not enforced at the Times, and it was unheard of at the Spectator. My sources did tell me all the things I quoted them as telling me. I didn’t have the judgment to know that people will say anything, particularly in an incendiary conflict such as this one. Every source I relied on either thought Thomas walked on water or had a virulent animus toward Hill. Already conditioned to think the best of Thomas and the worst of Hill, I did nothing to test these sources or question their motives. That almost all of the “kooky” quotes were voiced from behind a shield of anonymity gave me no pause. My incompetence was compounded by an uninformed bias, by the grip of a partisan tunnel vision that was by now such a part of my nature that it distorted my work, disabling me from finding the truth, without my even knowing it. > > Of course, to most readers outside the conservative world my reportage was self-discrediting. But my piece had a certain power in its presentation. Despite my roiling emotions, the cognitive part of my brain was built like a steel trap. Is any further comment really necessary? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/66 "2004-12-09T18:29:43Z")
> [@bup](#): > > What about the part where you said Paula Jones was not lying? And here, you need to show that she was not lying about harrasment, not about sex with Bill. You are confusing Paula Jones with Monica Lewinsky, I believe. Paula never claimed that she had had sex with Clinton. She claimed that he exposed himself to her and “requested” oral sex from her, and she declined. IIRC, she also accurately described some distinguishing marks on parts of Clinton’s body that, if he had never exposed himself in her presence, she would not have known about. If you would like merely to put it down to a “he said, she said” situation, I would say that you should consider which one of the parties to the case was found by a judge to have made “intentionally false and misleading statements” under oath, and was disbarred as a result. > [@jshore](#): > > Wow…There were actual citations to things!?! That’s enough to convince me. > > I know you know that Brock says it was all bullshit and you still don’t care, but it is nonetheless fun to compare how highly you hold this work in comparison to how the author feels about it: Sorry, I am not talking about feelings. I am discussing matters of fact. > [@David Brock](#): > > Every source I relied on either thought Thomas walked on water or had a virulent animus toward Hill. This is a false statement. The book relies extensively on Anita Hill’s own sworn testimony, and that of her defenders. All matters of established fact - not something that can be dismissed with a casual “he’s changed his mind, so it doesn’t count.” > [@jshore](#): > > Is any further comment really necessary? Not unless you have anything more substantive than “everything Brock says is a lie, except lately”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/67 "2004-12-09T19:43:33Z")
There seem to be some competing ideas here… a sense that the courts ruled against her lawsuit, so Paula Jones must have lied. IN fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. The decision dismissing Ms. Jones’ complaint _assumes that her allegations were completely true_. This was not the result of any fact-finding – in other words, you may not point to this assumption as any sort of substantive evidence that her allegations were true. It was, instead, a classic reason for _summary judgement_: to say, “We don’t need to go to trial and find facts here, because even if all of the plaintff’s facts were found to be true, there is still no liability on the part of the defendant.” Even if Paula Jones’ claims were completely and utterly true, they didn’t describe harrassment. Rude and boorish behavior - yes. But every instance of rude and boorish behavior is not actionable harrassment. Ms. Jones alleged no tangible employment detriment. She alleged no quid-pro-quo. Her allegations did not rise to a “hostile work environment.” In short, even if she spoke nothing but the gospel truth, that truth did not describe sexual harrassment. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/68 "2004-12-09T20:18:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Sorry, I am not talking about feelings. I am discussing matters of fact. **Presenting your opinions about the book as fact does not make them fact.** And, given that the actual author of the book now has opinions about the supposed evidence in the book that are much lower than yours, I would find it hard to understand why we are to believe yours over his. > [@](#): > > Not unless you have anything more substantive than “everything Brock says is a lie, except lately”. You’ll note that he doesn’t so much say that he himself lied but rather that he reported other people’s claims without any verification and giving only one side of the story. And sorry if I find it hard to believe that someone unerringly told the truth in the past but has now decided to lie and say that he was being untruthful (or, more accurately, using very selective and crudy reporting) when he was in fact being diligent and truthful back then in the past but has only chosen to lie and deceive now. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/69 "2004-12-09T20:27:11Z")
Just because a bunch of jerks grandstand doesn’t mean they have legitimate claim to anything. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/70 "2004-12-09T20:49:14Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > **Presenting your opinions about the book as fact does not make them fact.** True. Extensive documentation and citations are what establish things as fact. > [@jshore](#): > > And, given that the actual author of the book now has opinions about the supposed evidence in the book that are much lower than yours, I would find it hard to understand why we are to believe yours over his. Because those matters that can be established as fact have been established. The author’s desire to weasel out does not affect whether or not the facts are true or not. Brock may wish mightily that he never wrote the book. Insofar as the book proves facts, his later wishes do not affect the truth value of the book. “I wish I had never said that” is **not** the same as “I was lying”. If what you said was factually accurate, it does not become false simply because you now wish it were. Reality doesn’t work that way. > [@jshore](#): > > You’ll note that he doesn’t so much say that he himself lied but rather that he reported other people’s claims without any verification and giving only one side of the story. Right, and I already pointed out that this is not the case. Brock reported Anita Hill’s claims, from her own testimony and that of supporting witnesses. I’ve read the book. If Brock is alleging that Anita Hill’s testimony was unreliable, or that her friends were completely mistaken about the time frame they claim to have been so sure about, this does not establish that the book is incorrect. That is exactly what the book was maintaining all along. Anita Hill’s account is at significant variance from facts otherwise established. This is not based on David Brock’s opinion, but on what was established as true. Brock may certainly wish all he likes that he never showed this to be the case. But unless he can establish that Anita Hill did not say what his book claims she said under oath, then his desire to take it all back does not alter what has been shown to be true. What Anita Hill said under oath is a matter of public record. > [@jshore](#): > > And sorry if I find it hard to believe that someone unerringly told the truth in the past but has now decided to lie and say that he was being untruthful (or, more accurately, using very selective and crudy reporting) when he was in fact being diligent and truthful back then in the past but has only chosen to lie and deceive now. There is no reason you should. Believe Brock when he proves what he says, and disbelieve him every other time. He admits that his word is not reliable. Thus it makes sense to assume he is lying, until he proves otherwise. In his book, he proves otherwise. The truth of a statement is independent of the speaker. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/71 "2004-12-09T21:06:34Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > There is no reason you should. Believe Brock when he proves what he says, and disbelieve him every other time. He admits that his word is not reliable. Thus it makes sense to assume he is lying, until he proves otherwise. In his book, he proves otherwise. Except that Brock himself explains how he proved no such thing. In fact, he says: > [@](#): > > Of course, to most readers outside the conservative world my reportage was self-discrediting. Without reading the book and researching it myself, of course, I cannot arrive at a truly independent assessment of his reporting in that book. However, given the conflicting claims of you and him, with you saying that it was much better than he says it was (and given the previous experience I have had with you being very “creative” and partisan in how you view evidence), I would tend to believe him for now. If someone wants to believe you, that is of course their perogative. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/72 "2004-12-09T21:10:32Z")
> [@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. That’s not the correct question. Remember Sir Arthur Clarke’s statement: “One of the greatest tragedies in human history was the hijacking of morality by religion.” How did we ever let that happen is the correct question. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/73 "2004-12-09T21:20:21Z")
Let’s be fair. Friend **Shodan** claims to have independent verification of facts that prove Ms. Hill to be a liar. Very well, all he need do is produce them. I followed the Hill/Thomas debacle as did many, in the final analysis, it seems to be to end up a “he said, she said” type situation. My own inclinations lead me to prefer her side to his, but I accept that this is not incontrovertible, doubt exists. This is where the matter stood when Thomas was confirmed, and, to my knowledge, has not changed since. Mr. Brock’s journey into the light of reason, however commendable, does not alter any facts. **Shodan** claims to have these facts at his fingertips, but is apparently reluctant to offend and embarass us by presenting them. Let us reassure him of our good opinion, and invite him to bring forward these incontrovertible facts. We are made of sterner stuff, he need not worry about hurting our feelings, or sending us reeling in dismay. We thank him for his kind concern, and will hold him blameless. When he brings forth those facts. Which he has. At his fingertips. Yes. Quite. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/74 "2004-12-09T21:52:12Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Except that Brock himself explains how he proved no such thing. In fact, he says: > > > [@](#): > > > > Of course, to most readers outside the conservative world my reportage was self-discrediting. I’m sure it’s true, especially among those who dismiss the book without having read it or knowing anything about it. > [@](#): > > **Without reading the book** and researching it myself, of course, I cannot arrive at a truly independent assessment of his reporting in that book. _:shrugs:_ And **I’m** the one being “creative” with the evidence. 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 9, 2004, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/75 "2004-12-09T21:59:49Z")
More to the point, you are being very _economical_ with the evidence. In that, thus far, called to present such evidence you decline. In so doing, you invite the presumption that you do not, in fact, possess such evidence. A presumption that you can dispel instantly, by the simple expedient of producing some. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2004, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/76 "2004-12-09T22:48:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And **I’m** the one being “creative” with the evidence. And your point is? Yes, I admit that I haven’t read the book and researched its accuracy and thus cannot arrive at an independent assessment. **However, that does not mean that I have no choice but to believe your assessment** , especially when we have a record of your assessment of other evidence that we have studied more closely and when your assessment of the evidence is much, much more glowing than the author’s own current assessment of the evidence that he had presented in that book. And, of course, as **elucidator** points out, you have given us no evidence to support your own assessment. And, I need only to remind myself (for example) of your amazing ability to know objectively, with absolute certainty, what the Second Amendment means (even if your interpretation flies in the face of interpretations by many learned judges and scholars) in order to decide how much to trust your judgement on these matters. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/77 "2004-12-10T01:12:21Z")
I suspect **Shodan** will have evidence of Ms. Hill’s evildoings right after he finishes producing evidence of Saddam’s thousands of tons of illicit WMDs. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/78 "2004-12-10T15:03:49Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > And your point is? Yes, I admit that I haven’t read the book and researched its accuracy and thus cannot arrive at an independent assessment. I thought your assumption was that the whole book was a lie. Now you are alleging that you “cannot arrive at an independent assessment”. My point is that you are dismissing the book without having read it. And accusing others of selective reading of facts. > [@jshore](#): > > **However, that does not mean that I have no choice but to believe your assessment** … Entirely true. Nobody can force you to examine evidence if you would rather not. > [@jshore](#): > > And, I need only to remind myself (for example) of your amazing ability to know objectively, with absolute certainty, what the Second Amendment means (even if your interpretation flies in the face of interpretations by many learned judges and scholars) in order to decide how much to trust your judgement on these matters. Well, I’ve read the Second Amendment. Therefore it would seem that my opinion of it is worth something more than your opinion of Brock’s book. Be that as it may, I am not asking you to trust my judgement. If you don’t know about something, and don’t want to know, it is not going to be much of a discussion. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592/79 "2004-12-10T17:14:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I thought your assumption was that the whole book was a lie. Now you are alleging that you “cannot arrive at an independent assessment”. Well that seems to be a reading comprehension issue on your part since there is nowhere did I say what you thought my assumption was. And, I already told you that I couldn’t arrive at an independent assessment in post #71, a post that you subsequently responded to in a previous post to your latest one. > [@](#): > > Be that as it may, I am not asking you to trust my judgement. If you don’t know about something, and don’t want to know, it is not going to be much of a discussion. Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than research the factual correctness of (and compellingness of the evidence in) books that even the author of the book no longer will vouch for. And, I guess you have decided that you have better things to do than to show us in this thread all of this compelling evidence from the book, which is fine with me but then don’t expect us to take your word that Anita Hill lied about the whole thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-right-wing-take-over-the-moral-and-religious-high-ground/276592.md?page=3)