comments_imageCOMMENTS: 64

The GOP Has Become the Party of Moral Depravity

The conservative movement made hay for 40 years claiming that liberals were "morally depraved." Let's look at the record.
November 20, 2007  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a groundbreaking paper back in the 1960s about the alleged weaknesses of often female-headed African-American families. He described a culture of loose morals and indulgent self-destructive behavior which the right successfully demagogued into a decades long, thinly veiled racist attack on government welfare programs. The common wisdom was that welfare institutionalized and rewarded failure leading to an immoral social order. Throughout the period there were sustained conservative attacks on those who defended such programs and participated in the vast cultural transformation of the era, characterizing these behaviors as "moral depravity."

As recently as the early '90s, Moynihan himself was busily coining snappy slogans to illustrate liberalism's essential immorality, the most memorable being "defining deviancy down":
It appears to me that this is in fact what we in the United States have been doing of late. I proffer the thesis that, over the past generation, since the time Erikson wrote, the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can "afford to recognize" and that, accordingly, we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the "normal" level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard. This redefining has evoked fierce resistance from defenders of "old" standards, and accounts for much of the present "cultural war" such as proclaimed by many at the 1992 Republican National Convention.
Let me, then, offer three categories of redefinition in these the altruistic, the opportunistic, and the normalizing.
The first category, the altruistic, may be illustrated by the deinstitutionalization movement within the mental health profession that appeared in the 1950s. The second category, the opportunistic, is seen in the interest group rewards derived from the acceptance of "alternative" family structures. The third category, the normalizing, is to be observed in the growing acceptance of unprecedented levels of violent crime.
Moynihan and others had been convinced that the biggest problems in American society stemmed from destructive behaviors among common folk. He, and many of those culture warriors he describes so benignly, were particularly concerned with the personal and sexual habits of the underclass, believing that America had normalized certain "animalistic" behaviors which led inevitably to poverty and social unrest.

Moynihan wrote that paper on the heels of the L.A. riots, and being considered something of an expert in race relations because of his earlier work on urban problems (and that famous paper) people listened avidly. But it was also on the heels of the greatest taxpayer bailout of private business in history -- the savings and loan crisis. Somehow that didn't factor into the descriptions of a decline of morality or the redefining of deviant behavior in American society.

So, while marriage and kids are still popular enough that the allegedly decadent gay community clamors for the right to have a normal bourgeois family (and ironically are being fought every step of the way by those who claim to be concerned about family's demise!), we hear nothing from the culture warriors about this particular kind of moral depravity:
One of the state's largest health insurers set goals and paid bonuses based in part on how many individual policyholders were dropped and how much money was saved.
Woodland Hills-based Health Net Inc. avoided paying $35.5 million in medical expenses by rescinding about 1,600 policies between 2000 and 2006. During that period, it paid its senior analyst in charge of cancellations more than $20,000 in bonuses based in part on her meeting or exceeding annual targets for revoking policies, documents disclosed Thursday showed ...
The bonuses were disclosed at an arbitration hearing in a lawsuit brought by Patsy Bates, a Gardena hairdresser whose coverage was rescinded by Health Net in the middle of chemotherapy treatments for breast cancer.
Every day in the news we have horror stories about average Americans who happen to get sick and are forced to deal with a byzantine health care system designed to prevent them, if at all possible, from getting the care they need, while conservative presidential candidates declare:
"I don't like mandating health care. I don't like it because it erodes what makes health care work in this country -- the free market, the profit motive. A mandate takes choice away from people. We've got to let people make choices. We've got to let them take the risk-do they want to be covered? Do they want health insurance? Because ultimately, if they don't, well, then, they may not be taken care of."
Unsurprisingly, we also have the decadent business elite, awash in cash and privilege during this second gilded age, being lavishly rewarded time after time for risky behavior. People like Merril Lynch's Stanley O'Neill who, after being fired for overseeing the loss of 8 billion dollars the company invested in sub-prime loans, was forced to settle for a mere 160 million dollar golden parachute -- on top of his 48 million dollar salary.

And let's not forget the decadent elites in Washington, who having passed punitive bankruptcy reform that makes it extremely difficult for people to even get a clean slate when things don't turn out well for them financially being asked to bear the burden for Stanley O'Neill's risky ventures. They are now expected to tepidly try to pass some mitigating legislation which the Bush administration will likely veto.

Meanwhile, you have the e. coli conservatives making huge profits selling lead toys to your kids (when they're not accidentally dosing them with date rape drugs), enabling mine-owners to take shortcuts that end up killing their workers, and simply pretending that threats such a global warming don't exist. The stories of war profiteering in Iraq are so appalling and grotesque that it's almost impossible to absorb. And then, of course, there's is torture.

So, here we find ourselves more than 40 years after the conservatives began decrying the moral depravity of the left and 15 years after Patrick Moynihan told us that our liberal culture was defining deviancy down and we find that they were right all along. They just got one little detail wrong. It wasn't the liberal left who were morally depraved. It was them.

While the culture at large was adjusting to the idea that families don't all look the same and that private sexual morality was not the business of the state, the decadent economic elite and right wing ideologues had systematically defined deviancy down to the point where Moynihan's deviant "altruism" can be illustrated as giving bonuses to workers who denied cancer patients their medicine; his deviant "opportunism" is seen as giving hundreds of millions of dollars to failed business leaders who lost their companies billions; and his deviant "normalizing" can be observed as society tossing aside its taboo against government-sanctioned torture.

If those are the "old" standards the culture warriors of the right have been trying to defend, they're killing us. Literally.
Check out Digby's blog, Hullabaloo.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: health care, ethics


Comments are closed-

Speaking of Bi-Polars and such...
Posted by: talkville on Nov 20, 2007 1:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taken from the stand-point of our sciences, the dyad, in chemistry and physics and other sciences may be taken as a unity composed of two elements.

There's a unity composed of two elements much in the air today in other spheres: the dyad known as the "human-animal". In our Electronic Age, we could place a + sign and a - sign on either one element or the other of this dyad.

Civilized humans since WWII have been struggling long and struggling hard to advance the development of the dyad "human-animal". Reactionaries and barbarians, among which we can count the so-called 'conservatives' and 'right-wingers' have been struggling long and hard to maintain, sustain and develop the exact reverse dyad "animal-human".

Sadly, it seems seems the first volley of attack by Reagan and Thatcher in the early 1980's, the Conservatives and Right-wingers have largely succeeded in the USA. The unitary take-over by Republicans during the '90's and into our present times have pretty much sealed the deal. This is becoming apparent in society and culture, economics and politics -- all across the board of our society.

We must move the "+" sign back onto the human side of the dyad; the alternative is ominous-- the perfection, education and moulding of a most excellent ANIMAL-human which daily is enveloping the USA in ever-more subtle ways. In these turbulent and transformative times, especially in view of the horrendous, abhorrent and devastating events and acts of the 1st half of the 20th century, the struggle has become urgent. The USA is rapidly taking a place on the darker side of civilization and on the wrong side of history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Speaking of dyads and such... Posted by: Squarehead
» I prefer Euros Posted by: Cathyc

Comments are closed-

Why the Gobbleygook?
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Nov 20, 2007 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article could have stated the obvious by using far easier to understand language.

You could have simply started listing the number of Republican hypocrites. You could have pointed out the number of Republicans who love Jesus more than their mothers who are or who have been stuping their mistresses or diddling boys.

You could have pointed out the amoral legislation that is put forth by so-called values Republicans.

You could have pointed to the number of ways Bush has ignored American citizens and focused almost exclusively on foreign policy.

You could have shown us how many jobs have gone overseas while American businesses get their tax cuts by having addresses in the Caribbean.

Etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why the Gobbleygook? Posted by: sliver

Comments are closed-

Now if only the Dems could stay on message...
Posted by: Angel1961 on Nov 20, 2007 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is clear and concise and serves to undercut the Dems at the same time. It is all about framing the discourse.

The rethugs love to appeal to issues in a testosterone-fueled way. Why can't the Dems launch TV ads at election time showing it is "macho" for a man to want his family to have low-cost government-mandated health insurance? (and he will fight against any corporation trying to profit off the demise of his family's health). That it is macho to demand his taxes pay for a secure future for his children (i.e. access to affordable higher education)? Or that it is macho to demand a living wage from his disgustingly overpaid employers? And that it is not macho to play by the right's Social Darwinist rules- as they only benefit those who already are at the top of the heap? I am not a sexist, but let's start with their framing and then shove the argument right back into their greedy faces.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» CommonDreamer Posted by: CommonDreamer

Comments are closed-

The Democrats are pretty immoral themselves
Posted by: dover23 on Nov 20, 2007 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Supporting the global empire and inflation is immoral as anything. Left gatekeepers such as Alternet attempt to distract you with irrelevant arguments so you miss the big picture reality which is the Democrats supporting the status quo.

Disgusting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» no REAL dissent Posted by: jbur816

Comments are closed-

Why oh why won't the dems take the moral high ground?
Posted by: Farasien on Nov 20, 2007 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole moral superiority BS line has been screamed from the pulpits of government office by the repugnicans for the last 40 years, but, as the article eludes to, the big money assholes have sold us all down the river in the name of greed... And nobody openly calls them on it! If the dems started pointing this out in every campaign commercial, in every speech and push the idea that, hey America, Greed is wrong too! we might just see someone from the progressive wing of the dem party in office instead of an endless string of bastards from the big money party from the right AND the left. The high ground is there, progressives... For the sake of our country and its rapidly dimming future, PLEASE take it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Blood in the streets Posted by: Cathyc

Comments are closed-

A good article ruined by crappy framework.
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Nov 20, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Climbing up on a soapbox and yelling that the GOP is morally corrupt without mentioning the Democrats seems to me to just put more pressure on wedge that splits Americans on the GOP/DEM divide. It hasn't been Democrats vs. Republicans for a very long time. It has been the federal government vs YOU! That needs to be fixed so that government functions properly before Americans worry about Dem vs. GOP.

Those posters that call for the Dems to retake the moral high ground amuse me. Its kind of like calling for Michael Corleone to take the moral high ground away from Sonny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

TWO SETS OF RULES
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 20, 2007 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One group is morally depraved and the other group is simply misguided and their conduct can always be 'explained'.If people can afford their lifestyle it can be what ever they want it to be. Rules are very flexible. A wealthy man can afford to support an illigitimate child, a poor man can't. Both are wrong,but that's not the perception. A poor woman is a slut, a rich one likes variety.This won't change any time soon. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great comment Posted by: jbur816
» RE: TWO SETS OF RULES Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

Another Take
Posted by: TarryFaster on Nov 20, 2007 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Allow me to offer my perception of how the GOP has been compromised and subverted by, as Mike Malloy likes to call them, "The Bush Crime Family."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Politicos
Posted by: modeler on Nov 20, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the difference between Dems and Reps? Aren't they all in the business of making money? And the fact is that they all are basically crooked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Ethics versus Morality
Posted by: ClassAct on Nov 20, 2007 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One might interpret the substance of this issue as that between ethics on the one hand and morality on the other. W.F. Buckley used to complain that liberals made a sanctimonious presentation of their morality. While ethics is subject to a logical, mathematical-like determination based on some evaluation such as utilitarianism or the golden rule, morality is a personal judgment call on what ought or ought not to be done. The business and religious factions of conservatism are bound by claims of moral superiority: social Darwinism for the rich and witch hunting for the religious. The liberal side is, by contrast, not so much united by ethical considerations as divided by them. This is on the one hand due to uncertainties of ethical evidence, but on the other hand also due to genuine discrepancies in the religious perceptions of matters such as the golden rule. Buddha's golden rule, "Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you," is fundamentally different than its Christian would-be equivalent. We do not know how to do good, but we can avoid doing evil. Our capacity to avoid doing evil, however, can be compromised by the perception that we feel ourselves to be doing ethical good on the basis of our moral superiority. So it was the PNAC knew they could provide a moral and ethical camouflage for a geopolitical war for resources under the rhetoric of "spreading democracy."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: thics versus Morality Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

When going backward is made to look like moving forward.
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 20, 2007 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moynihan's presumed 'golden age,' the standard he employs to discredit social change, is a fantasy. Yes, the fantasy empowers a radical right wing who can gain control of democracy for a time to try to stop change. The damage done by such a process is not only foolish but painful.

The whole point of public education is that it is necessary for each new generation to relearn the lessons of history. Despite our US failure in education compared to other first world nations, the myth of US "exceptionalism" elects those who desire no change. If you are the rich, why would you want anything to change?

It's not the simple contest between power and powerlessness that dominates. Too many of the powerless don't want anything to change either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

All in fun...
Posted by: Knowmad on Nov 20, 2007 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(Thought you Yanks could use a giggle about now. I had to edit some out due to Alternet's size limitations.)

To the citizens of the United States of America:

In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories (except Texas, which she does not fancy), as from Monday next. Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

- Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up "vocabulary"). Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.

- You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

- Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

- All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

- All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you willstart driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric immediately and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

- The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling "gasoline") - roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.

- You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps." Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with mayonnaise but with vinegar.

- The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer," and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as "Lager." American brands will be referred to as "Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine," so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

- You will cease playing American "football." There is only one kind of proper football; you call it "soccer". Those of you brave enough will, in time, will be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).

- July 4 will no longer be celebrated as a holiday. November 26 will be a new national holiday, but to be celebrated only in England. It will be called "Come-Uppance Day."

An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due backdated to 1776.

Thank you for your co-operation.
John Cleese (former Python)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All in fun... Posted by: pizzmoe
» RE: Vocabulary Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» Orwellian Doublespeak Posted by: Cathyc

Comments are closed-

"The party of Moral Depravity"
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Nov 20, 2007 11:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been to lots of those...and had a GREAT time at all of them!

;)

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Big Weapons Money Is Shifting
Posted by: PaulK on Nov 20, 2007 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rats aren't stupid. They leave a sinking ship for a better one, and military contractors are now heavily in Hillary Clinton's pocket.

I have absolute standards of what constitutes good government, not a slightly lesser of two evils standard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

HR 1955, passed with bipartisan support
Posted by: jbur816 on Nov 20, 2007 12:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look into it. Vote was 404 to 6. So, there are 6 house reps that still care about the freedom of the American people and the constitution. You can't exactly just blame the Republicans for the state of our state, which is, in case you haven't noticed, in a state of emergency. By the way, not that it matters, but the Bill came from Jane Harmon, a Democrat with big ties to big AIPAC.

Who is really running this country is the real question we need to be asking... big money interests, big corporations and Israel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

More than hypocrisy
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Nov 20, 2007 5:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about two needless wars with fradulent casi belli which have killed 4000 American troops and a million Iraqis, most of them innocent women and children, and driven 4.5 million into impoverished homelessness? How about blatant war profiteering and shameless tax dodging by our Vice President and his pals? How about lying, spying, torturing? The morality of the radical red-state, redneck, red-ink Republican religious right is confined to other people's sexual behavior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Daniel Patrick who cares?
Posted by: raywigton on Nov 20, 2007 7:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the headline, I expected to read about all the political hypocrites in Washington. Like typical, the story doesn't follow and I'm bored again. I don't care what some goofy idiot racist pig has to say about moral depravity.

Our local preacher just moved. He got caught having sex in the church, with a married woman - and I don't mean his wife. He lived in a million dollar house built on tithing. The southern baptist's were quick to defend him. It's not just adultery; this guy is screwing God. L Ron Hubbard said if you want to get rich, start your own church.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Daniel Patrick who cares? Posted by: TheNamelessCity

Comments are closed-

The GOP has an immorality selection process
Posted by: Canute on Nov 21, 2007 7:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here are two articles that tell the story, one about how CEO's get to their high positions, and the other about the conservative slant to sexual misbehavior.

It isn't just chance that this particular political party has caused so much havoc. There are deep social structures that select or exclude people from the positions of economic power depending upon their moral capabilities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Nov 25, 2007 7:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is hard to believe there could be a debate about which is the more moral party. Free markets as promulgated by the Republicans serve greed and amorality - if this isn't evident by now (especially in the mortgage rip offs), I don't know what is. The free market is also anti-family as it has a clawing, divisive nature to it, and it is definitely not pro labor. Regressive taxes are definitely anti-family and anti-society and they encourage selfishness to the point of letting bridges fall down and the uninsured fend for themselves, and encouraging the slave driving, profiteering mentality present in WalMart and the stock market in general. The federal budget has been cut so many times that the FHA, HUD, CDC, FTC and other government agencies are rendered less powerful and cannot do their jobs effectively - i.e., protecting the American people from unsafe imports, putting money into infrastructure, and building affordable housing.

Most of the Republicans are like frat house residents.They are greedy, don't want to spend money on the unglamorous things like infrastructure and social services, and think that everything will just fix itself magically as long as they keep cutting taxes for the rich.

Right wingers and the religious right are mostly hypocrites who have known gays in their midst working on their policies and they would just as soon abandon them when they are outed.

They enjoy the fruits of cheap labor abroad and here from immigrants and yet would as soon persecute them as find a better solution to immigration. At least President Bush tried to make what seemed to be a reasonable solution but of course it was shot down as too much crazy partisanship and hysteria got in the way.

BTW, the Republicans have a higher divorce rate than the Dems - and they have more indictments for crimes by far than the Dems. Look it up on Google - it's there.

At least the Democrats stand for the common man, as much as the electorate (who bought the trickle down drivel now for years and years) will let them. As to why the Democrats supposedly cannot accomplish anything now - they still do not have the voting numbers they need -- and worst of all, they have to fight off the bogus anti-tax propaganda of the right wing as they struggle to make a more progressive system and get the funds to make things right again.

All I can say is the American electorate makes it as difficult as possible for our government to get anything done and I admire those who try anyway.

When I think of the right wing being carrying the "moral" mantle, I have to laugh - just like Hillary's cackle - (I think that's part of what she was laughing at, and rightly so).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Speaking of Bi-Polars and such...
Posted by: talkville on Nov 20, 2007 1:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taken from the stand-point of our sciences, the dyad, in chemistry and physics and other sciences may be taken as a unity composed of two elements.

There's a unity composed of two elements much in the air today in other spheres: the dyad known as the "human-animal". In our Electronic Age, we could place a + sign and a - sign on either one element or the other of this dyad.

Civilized humans since WWII have been struggling long and struggling hard to advance the development of the dyad "human-animal". Reactionaries and barbarians, among which we can count the so-called 'conservatives' and 'right-wingers' have been struggling long and hard to maintain, sustain and develop the exact reverse dyad "animal-human".

Sadly, it seems seems the first volley of attack by Reagan and Thatcher in the early 1980's, the Conservatives and Right-wingers have largely succeeded in the USA. The unitary take-over by Republicans during the '90's and into our present times have pretty much sealed the deal. This is becoming apparent in society and culture, economics and politics -- all across the board of our society.

We must move the "+" sign back onto the human side of the dyad; the alternative is ominous-- the perfection, education and moulding of a most excellent ANIMAL-human which daily is enveloping the USA in ever-more subtle ways. In these turbulent and transformative times, especially in view of the horrendous, abhorrent and devastating events and acts of the 1st half of the 20th century, the struggle has become urgent. The USA is rapidly taking a place on the darker side of civilization and on the wrong side of history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Speaking of dyads and such... Posted by: Squarehead
» I prefer Euros Posted by: Cathyc

Comments are closed-

Why the Gobbleygook?
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Nov 20, 2007 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article could have stated the obvious by using far easier to understand language.

You could have simply started listing the number of Republican hypocrites. You could have pointed out the number of Republicans who love Jesus more than their mothers who are or who have been stuping their mistresses or diddling boys.

You could have pointed out the amoral legislation that is put forth by so-called values Republicans.

You could have pointed to the number of ways Bush has ignored American citizens and focused almost exclusively on foreign policy.

You could have shown us how many jobs have gone overseas while American businesses get their tax cuts by having addresses in the Caribbean.

Etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why the Gobbleygook? Posted by: sliver

Comments are closed-

Now if only the Dems could stay on message...
Posted by: Angel1961 on Nov 20, 2007 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is clear and concise and serves to undercut the Dems at the same time. It is all about framing the discourse.

The rethugs love to appeal to issues in a testosterone-fueled way. Why can't the Dems launch TV ads at election time showing it is "macho" for a man to want his family to have low-cost government-mandated health insurance? (and he will fight against any corporation trying to profit off the demise of his family's health). That it is macho to demand his taxes pay for a secure future for his children (i.e. access to affordable higher education)? Or that it is macho to demand a living wage from his disgustingly overpaid employers? And that it is not macho to play by the right's Social Darwinist rules- as they only benefit those who already are at the top of the heap? I am not a sexist, but let's start with their framing and then shove the argument right back into their greedy faces.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» CommonDreamer Posted by: CommonDreamer

Comments are closed-

The Democrats are pretty immoral themselves
Posted by: dover23 on Nov 20, 2007 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Supporting the global empire and inflation is immoral as anything. Left gatekeepers such as Alternet attempt to distract you with irrelevant arguments so you miss the big picture reality which is the Democrats supporting the status quo.

Disgusting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» no REAL dissent Posted by: jbur816

Comments are closed-

Why oh why won't the dems take the moral high ground?
Posted by: Farasien on Nov 20, 2007 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole moral superiority BS line has been screamed from the pulpits of government office by the repugnicans for the last 40 years, but, as the article eludes to, the big money assholes have sold us all down the river in the name of greed... And nobody openly calls them on it! If the dems started pointing this out in every campaign commercial, in every speech and push the idea that, hey America, Greed is wrong too! we might just see someone from the progressive wing of the dem party in office instead of an endless string of bastards from the big money party from the right AND the left. The high ground is there, progressives... For the sake of our country and its rapidly dimming future, PLEASE take it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Blood in the streets Posted by: Cathyc

Comments are closed-

A good article ruined by crappy framework.
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Nov 20, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Climbing up on a soapbox and yelling that the GOP is morally corrupt without mentioning the Democrats seems to me to just put more pressure on wedge that splits Americans on the GOP/DEM divide. It hasn't been Democrats vs. Republicans for a very long time. It has been the federal government vs YOU! That needs to be fixed so that government functions properly before Americans worry about Dem vs. GOP.

Those posters that call for the Dems to retake the moral high ground amuse me. Its kind of like calling for Michael Corleone to take the moral high ground away from Sonny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

TWO SETS OF RULES
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 20, 2007 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One group is morally depraved and the other group is simply misguided and their conduct can always be 'explained'.If people can afford their lifestyle it can be what ever they want it to be. Rules are very flexible. A wealthy man can afford to support an illigitimate child, a poor man can't. Both are wrong,but that's not the perception. A poor woman is a slut, a rich one likes variety.This won't change any time soon. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great comment Posted by: jbur816
» RE: TWO SETS OF RULES Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

Another Take
Posted by: TarryFaster on Nov 20, 2007 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Allow me to offer my perception of how the GOP has been compromised and subverted by, as Mike Malloy likes to call them, "The Bush Crime Family."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Politicos
Posted by: modeler on Nov 20, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the difference between Dems and Reps? Aren't they all in the business of making money? And the fact is that they all are basically crooked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Ethics versus Morality
Posted by: ClassAct on Nov 20, 2007 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One might interpret the substance of this issue as that between ethics on the one hand and morality on the other. W.F. Buckley used to complain that liberals made a sanctimonious presentation of their morality. While ethics is subject to a logical, mathematical-like determination based on some evaluation such as utilitarianism or the golden rule, morality is a personal judgment call on what ought or ought not to be done. The business and religious factions of conservatism are bound by claims of moral superiority: social Darwinism for the rich and witch hunting for the religious. The liberal side is, by contrast, not so much united by ethical considerations as divided by them. This is on the one hand due to uncertainties of ethical evidence, but on the other hand also due to genuine discrepancies in the religious perceptions of matters such as the golden rule. Buddha's golden rule, "Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you," is fundamentally different than its Christian would-be equivalent. We do not know how to do good, but we can avoid doing evil. Our capacity to avoid doing evil, however, can be compromised by the perception that we feel ourselves to be doing ethical good on the basis of our moral superiority. So it was the PNAC knew they could provide a moral and ethical camouflage for a geopolitical war for resources under the rhetoric of "spreading democracy."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: thics versus Morality Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

When going backward is made to look like moving forward.
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 20, 2007 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moynihan's presumed 'golden age,' the standard he employs to discredit social change, is a fantasy. Yes, the fantasy empowers a radical right wing who can gain control of democracy for a time to try to stop change. The damage done by such a process is not only foolish but painful.

The whole point of public education is that it is necessary for each new generation to relearn the lessons of history. Despite our US failure in education compared to other first world nations, the myth of US "exceptionalism" elects those who desire no change. If you are the rich, why would you want anything to change?

It's not the simple contest between power and powerlessness that dominates. Too many of the powerless don't want anything to change either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

All in fun...
Posted by: Knowmad on Nov 20, 2007 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(Thought you Yanks could use a giggle about now. I had to edit some out due to Alternet's size limitations.)

To the citizens of the United States of America:

In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories (except Texas, which she does not fancy), as from Monday next. Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

- Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up "vocabulary"). Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.

- You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

- Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

- All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

- All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you willstart driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric immediately and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

- The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling "gasoline") - roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.

- You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps." Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with mayonnaise but with vinegar.

- The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer," and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as "Lager." American brands will be referred to as "Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine," so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

- You will cease playing American "football." There is only one kind of proper football; you call it "soccer". Those of you brave enough will, in time, will be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).

- July 4 will no longer be celebrated as a holiday. November 26 will be a new national holiday, but to be celebrated only in England. It will be called "Come-Uppance Day."

An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due backdated to 1776.

Thank you for your co-operation.
John Cleese (former Python)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All in fun... Posted by: pizzmoe
» RE: Vocabulary Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» Orwellian Doublespeak Posted by: Cathyc

Comments are closed-

"The party of Moral Depravity"
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Nov 20, 2007 11:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been to lots of those...and had a GREAT time at all of them!

;)

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Big Weapons Money Is Shifting
Posted by: PaulK on Nov 20, 2007 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rats aren't stupid. They leave a sinking ship for a better one, and military contractors are now heavily in Hillary Clinton's pocket.

I have absolute standards of what constitutes good government, not a slightly lesser of two evils standard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

HR 1955, passed with bipartisan support
Posted by: jbur816 on Nov 20, 2007 12:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look into it. Vote was 404 to 6. So, there are 6 house reps that still care about the freedom of the American people and the constitution. You can't exactly just blame the Republicans for the state of our state, which is, in case you haven't noticed, in a state of emergency. By the way, not that it matters, but the Bill came from Jane Harmon, a Democrat with big ties to big AIPAC.

Who is really running this country is the real question we need to be asking... big money interests, big corporations and Israel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

More than hypocrisy
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Nov 20, 2007 5:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about two needless wars with fradulent casi belli which have killed 4000 American troops and a million Iraqis, most of them innocent women and children, and driven 4.5 million into impoverished homelessness? How about blatant war profiteering and shameless tax dodging by our Vice President and his pals? How about lying, spying, torturing? The morality of the radical red-state, redneck, red-ink Republican religious right is confined to other people's sexual behavior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Daniel Patrick who cares?
Posted by: raywigton on Nov 20, 2007 7:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the headline, I expected to read about all the political hypocrites in Washington. Like typical, the story doesn't follow and I'm bored again. I don't care what some goofy idiot racist pig has to say about moral depravity.

Our local preacher just moved. He got caught having sex in the church, with a married woman - and I don't mean his wife. He lived in a million dollar house built on tithing. The southern baptist's were quick to defend him. It's not just adultery; this guy is screwing God. L Ron Hubbard said if you want to get rich, start your own church.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Daniel Patrick who cares? Posted by: TheNamelessCity

Comments are closed-

The GOP has an immorality selection process
Posted by: Canute on Nov 21, 2007 7:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here are two articles that tell the story, one about how CEO's get to their high positions, and the other about the conservative slant to sexual misbehavior.

It isn't just chance that this particular political party has caused so much havoc. There are deep social structures that select or exclude people from the positions of economic power depending upon their moral capabilities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

CommonDreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Nov 25, 2007 7:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is hard to believe there could be a debate about which is the more moral party. Free markets as promulgated by the Republicans serve greed and amorality - if this isn't evident by now (especially in the mortgage rip offs), I don't know what is. The free market is also anti-family as it has a clawing, divisive nature to it, and it is definitely not pro labor. Regressive taxes are definitely anti-family and anti-society and they encourage selfishness to the point of letting bridges fall down and the uninsured fend for themselves, and encouraging the slave driving, profiteering mentality present in WalMart and the stock market in general. The federal budget has been cut so many times that the FHA, HUD, CDC, FTC and other government agencies are rendered less powerful and cannot do their jobs effectively - i.e., protecting the American people from unsafe imports, putting money into infrastructure, and building affordable housing.

Most of the Republicans are like frat house residents.They are greedy, don't want to spend money on the unglamorous things like infrastructure and social services, and think that everything will just fix itself magically as long as they keep cutting taxes for the rich.

Right wingers and the religious right are mostly hypocrites who have known gays in their midst working on their policies and they would just as soon abandon them when they are outed.

They enjoy the fruits of cheap labor abroad and here from immigrants and yet would as soon persecute them as find a better solution to immigration. At least President Bush tried to make what seemed to be a reasonable solution but of course it was shot down as too much crazy partisanship and hysteria got in the way.

BTW, the Republicans have a higher divorce rate than the Dems - and they have more indictments for crimes by far than the Dems. Look it up on Google - it's there.

At least the Democrats stand for the common man, as much as the electorate (who bought the trickle down drivel now for years and years) will let them. As to why the Democrats supposedly cannot accomplish anything now - they still do not have the voting numbers they need -- and worst of all, they have to fight off the bogus anti-tax propaganda of the right wing as they struggle to make a more progressive system and get the funds to make things right again.

All I can say is the American electorate makes it as difficult as possible for our government to get anything done and I admire those who try anyway.

When I think of the right wing being carrying the "moral" mantle, I have to laugh - just like Hillary's cackle - (I think that's part of what she was laughing at, and rightly so).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS