You are operating on the plane of pure ethical discourse, which may be fine for a philosophy course or a Sunday morning sermon, but inappropriate for the rough-and-tumble realities of contemporary political realities.
and these ideals by definition require I summarily reject "the
opportunistic, shallow Yuppie narcissism of a Clinton" that you so flippantly embrace.
I do not embrace Clinton. And my implicit support for him in the current political context is anything but flippant. I have never voted for him. Never liked him. I have said numerous times that if the Starr investigation were about Clinton's campaign finances, his real estate dealings, or his illegal procurement of FBI files, I would wholeheartedly jump on the dump Clinton bandwagon. Unfortunately they are about his morals. And the whole campaign against Clinton is being staged as a morality play depicting the ills of the 1960s, including that era's social progresses, which I value. In the current context, Clinton's alleged and admitted misdeeds constitute far less of a threat to me than the methods and self-righteousness and of Starr and his backers. The entire evidence gathering process was flawed and would be thrown out of court on technicalities if he were being judged in a legal rather than political forum.
There is little integrity here
But you are wrong. There is much integrity there. I believe in tolerance and cherish the live-and-let-live ethos of the United States. Clinton wants to cheat on his wife, have sex with a woman less than half his age, that's his problem. I suggested earlier on this thread he should be in some sort of treatment program for sex addicts.
As for the lying, it does not measure up to any previous standard of impeachment. Remember the Watergate commission threw out the charge of tax evasion against Nixon because they believed it was not worthy of an impeachment article.
A rule of honor and respect has been broken
You seem far more concerned about the sex than the perjury. But in both cases, I have never seen much honor and respect emanating from the White House. Think about McKinley's duplicitiousness with regard to the people of the Phillipines at the turn of the century. Think about the Indian Treaties that were routinely violated. Think about the secret bombings of Cambodia. Think about secret deals trading arms with an enemy nation. Did you muster up this much outrage and indignation during the Iran-Contra debacle?
Merely because past presidents have done wrong presents us no logic allowing a cavalier dismissal of the wrongs committed by the current
president.
Theoretically you are right. Unfortunately, we do not live within the clean Cartesian lines of an ethics treatise or the simple morality of a country preacher's sermon. We live in the world, with all its glorious and ugly subtleties, contradictions, complexities, ambiguities, and above all, compromises.
The typical empty-headed liberal notion of "impose their teachings upon me or the people around me" equates to one's exercising one's right to free speech to proselytize on behalf of religion,
Many members of my family are religious and they constantly try to get me to see the light. I smile politely. Proselytize all you want, please. Just don't outlaw abortion and keep prayer out of schools. Treat gays as you would any other people, and that means you can't fire tham just because they're gay.
What worries blacks, women, gays, and other minorities is not the possibility that the NEA won't fund its art, but that we will return to the repressive political and social climate of yore. The past that some conservatives romanticize as a Golden Era of America was literally a nightmare for people of color and sexual minorities. Blacks and women have not necessarily "forgiven" the president for his misdeeds. They just see him as a better political ally than they see the Republicans attacking him. (That could change, especially with blacks, if George W. Bush runs for president.)
By the way, I am a member of an ethnic minority. I recall watching Pat Buchanan's speech at the Houston GOP convention in 1992. I was physically afraid. I know that a vast (passive) majority of devout Christians in this nation have no interest in interjecting their religious beliefs into the day-to-day governance of America. However, whether on the left or right, the active organized minority always appears to get his way. That's a paraphrase of Lenin.
When I see the NEA funding works such as "Piss Faggot", or "Kill Homos", then I will entertain the veracity of your statement.
What is this obsession of conservatives with gays? It's like the Nazis with Jews. The Serbians with Bosnians. The Turks with Kurds...etc. Everybody's got their "thing," I guess. Mine: those people who don't make a left when the light turns yellow, leaving both of us stranded in the middle of the intersection.
I know you were being facetious, but your use of such terms is way too flippant, and shows a lack of a key principle of decency--TOLERANCE. I suggest you work on it, since you're so devoted to your own spiritual embetterment.
Your tax money goes for art that you don't like, mine goes for atomic weapons I don't like. I'd rather have my money fund your rendition of "Piss Faggot" or "Kill Homos" than bankrolling corrupt and brutal Third World regimes like Saudi Arabia. That's life. It's pluralistic society, not a purist one, and you're money is going to go towards things you don't like just like mine does. Deal with it. Grow up. And welcome to the real world, my friend.
On a lighter note, the process the NEA uses for deciding what works get funded and presented is complicated, flawed, and elitist. I personally believe the government should get out of the arts game altogether or funnel arts money into established museums. The government deciding what particular art to fund raises too many questions.
I have a few better suggestions. We could divide the country down the middle. Those of the Left get the left side (pleased to be rid of California!), and those of the Right will possess the right. Or perhaps a better idea would be for the liberals to simply move to France and other morally bankrupt countries.
Johannes, mein freund, hast du 'was gegen arme Frankreich? Ich weiss shon dass sie zwei mal diese jahrhundert zum Krieg gekommen sind. Aber jetz haben wir die Europaeische Gemeinschaft und die Kriege sind viele jahre vorbei, nein?
But wait, how about if we get New York? I really like New York and it's a cauldron of sin and homosexuality anyway, so how about if it becomes like our Hong Kong? We'll trade you for Orange County. You can have Montana, too.
|
