Values problems in bed and in politics
Bookworm on Apr 15 2008 at 9:58 am | Filed under: Barack Obama, Conservative ideology, Democrats, Presidential elections, Republicans
Conservatives believe that it is dangerous to tumble into bed with someone instantly. They’re appalled by the raunchy hook-up culture amongst our young people, one that says it’s okay to have sex on the first date, as long as you try to line up reasonable precautions to limit some of the damaging fall-out (such as pregnancy and STDs). They think instead that young people who value themselves and want to have optimal outcomes should take the time to get to know each other before they take the relationship to next step. Liberals, however, think conservatives are anti-abortion fuddy-duddies who are denying natural sexuality and trying to turn America into a retrograde Puritan nation.
The same jump in bed divide appears in politics, too. As John Fund so beautifully said in an excellent article detailing Obama’s myriad flaws:
While Republicans tend to nominate their best-known candidate from previous nomination battles (Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and now John McCain), Democrats often fall in love during a first date. They are then surprised when all the relatives don’t think he’s splendid.
Michael Dukakis had a healthy lead in 1988 against the elder Bush at this time and right through the political conventions. Then came the GOP’s dissection of his Massachusetts record and his tank ride. Bill Clinton was able to win with only 43% of the vote in 1992, thanks in part to Ross Perot’s presence as a spoiler. John Kerry had a six-point lead in the May 2004 Gallup poll over President Bush, then the wind-surfer crashed. All of those candidates had never run for national office before. Democrats paid a price for running a rookie.
Related posts:
- Relative values — or no values at all
- Chicago backroom politics
- Music reveals some of the problems with Obama
Email This Post To A Friend
3 Responses to “Values problems in bed and in politics”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
An interesting observation, but I think there is even more to this analysis: Even Carter was non-national politician, who also had “a message,” and although McGovern, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry were part of national politics (as senators and/or VPs), they were also “message” candidates, and “agents of change.” In other words, since the sixties, there has been a series of Democrat candidates running on the “massive change is necessary” platform. This fits well with the two towers of the American left: Utopians (white left-liberals; including academics, actors, journalists, etc) and “practical advantage” groups (minorities, etc). So I think it is more than rookies in over their heads. There is also an element of “messages” speaking to the childish delusions of the utopians and the delusional self-interest of the advantage groups, while attempting to avoid speaking to everyone else. This would hinder candidates who have fought in previous public battles, in which they were forced by inevitability to pare back their utopian visions. Should they win, as Carter and Clinton did, any attempt to implement the “imagine”-style world that appeals to their base (“talk not bullets” with Iran; nationalized health care/gays in the military) results in a backlash: Reagan and Gingrich resulted, respectively.
Some on the left would cry foul to this analysis, and cite Reagan’s “morning in America” rhetoric, but that is a false comparison: Reagan was not attempting to deceive, he was plainly stating a simple message to everyone, friend or foe: “screw the sixties and seventies and the horses they rode in on.” And Gingrich was blatantly clear in his rhetoric.
Should we look forward to Starsky & Hutch the next go round or do we all ready have them.
I think it’s called naivete and trust. And rose-colored glasses.
But the worst sort of human monster always has a set of excuses ready to excuse his behavior. And he believes them. And he’s very convincing. Methinks some skepticism might be in order.
The ability to “court” rather than simply jumping into the orgy pile has its advantages!