Morality just isn't Republicans' thing anymore

1. 57

   Willowarborposted 15 months ago

   The party of "traditional values" seems to have lost track of what they are.  This is the party that sees itself as a moral majority, to steal Jerry Falwell's descriptor.
   
   When I talk about morality here, I do not primarily have in mind the hot-button culture war issues of sex and gender that dominate the current discourse, but a broader set of what could be called socially conservative values. These include the importance of religious belief and observance, the importance of strong and intact families, a notion that the leaders of any organization should be beyond reproach, a dislike for vulgarity, both profane and sexual and things like that.
   
   My how things have changed. The head of the party is a serial adulterer who brags about committing sexual assault with impunity, is dishonest in his business dealings,  needlessly callow and cruel and remains silent when threats and violence are committed in reaction to his words.
   
   Trump's presidency would seem to have vindicated the Southern Baptist Convention's claim that "tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God's judgment." Of course, that was about former President Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Now, tolerating this sort of behavior in a leader is par for the Republican Party course.
   
   Democrats, of course, have their own fair share of scandals, criminals, and cads, and they see themselves as being on the moral side, too. But they're not running around championing those "traditional values."
   
   Why do Republicans clamor to Trump and tolerate misbehavior which previous generations, maybe even the very same people, a few decades ago, would have viewed as immediately disqualifying?
   
   Are Republicans failing to uphold the standards they once championed?
   
   How can Republicans maintain their self-image as the moral majority while completely neglecting the standards that have traditionally defined moral behavior?
   
   What, if I may ask, is the moral question today for the Republicans?
   
   Are our leaders people who we think should be, above all, principled, honest, exemplary human beings, or is this now just about sort of thuggish survival of the fittest, whoever appears the strongest, loudest gets to rule the party? 
   
   For anybody who has read this, thank you for indulging my musing on morality.  Feel free to take it wherever your mind goes.

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

      "What, if I may ask, is the moral question today for the Republicans?"
      
      Is it not fair and important to approach discussions about political parties and their moral positions with a fair and balanced perspective?   In my view, both the Republican and Democratic parties consist of diverse groups of individuals with various beliefs, and it's not accurate to make sweeping generalizations about the moral character of either party as a whole. Hey, just my view.
      
      However, Moral questions for Republicans, as well as Democrats, can vary based on different factors, including changing societal norms, policy issues, and individual values.  As I feel ideologies are very far apart when it comes to Republicans and Democrats.  But, I will try to touch on your question.
      
      Republicans often emphasize limited government intervention in people's lives and the economy. The moral question revolves around finding the right balance between government regulation and our personal freedom, considering issues like healthcare, environmental regulations, social programs, and more...
      
      We have moral questions regarding social issues like abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and religious freedom often surface within the Republican party due to differing beliefs among members.
      
      Balancing national security and economic concerns with empathy and compassion for immigrants is another moral question that Republicans face, particularly in the context of border control and immigration policies that are clearly failing.
      
      Finding a moral stance on environmental issues while considering economic growth and energy independence is a challenge for Republicans, given varying opinions within our party.
      
      Moral considerations around military intervention, diplomacy, and international relations also come into play for Republicans. In any democracy, citizens often evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each party's positions and candidates before making their decisions about what party to support. Is it not important to engage in thoughtful, fact-based discussions about policy differences and the moral questions faced by both major parties?

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Willowarborposted 15 months agoin reply to this

         Thank you for a well thought out, insightful response. These days, more and more, morality seems to be only applied to "issues". Our values, beliefs, ethics and general sense of morality often isn't applied to the behaviors and actions of others, particularly politicians.  How can we be so firmly entrenched in terms of the morality of an issue like abortion for example but can turn a blind eye to the wildly immoral actions of others? For me, it's quite a contradiction.  Why aren't our elected officials subject to the same moral scrutiny? It seems that we can stand on the moral high ground of any issue yet turn and  ignore  the character,  words and acts of our "team" members. As much as folks rally against such issues as abortion and lgbtq concerns based on their morality; I would like to see that same process applied to those they choose to politically support.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

            "Why aren't our elected officials subject to the same moral scrutiny? It seems that we can stand on the moral high ground of any issue yet turn a ignore  the character,  words and acts of our "team" members. "
            
            This is a very hard question, I can only offer my rudimentary view.
            
            It is not the politicians we should be looking at in regard to this problem --- It is we the society that puts up with them. Not only puts up with them but in many cases defends the most despicable behavior.
            
            We seem to have been programmed at this point to accept any and all they dish up.  And we do it blindly.
            
            Face the realization we have two men that are badly flawed, yet we accept and don't demand more.
            
            I don't intend to debate the flaws, because it means little at this point.
            
            I consider them both flawed, and I don't weigh rotten apples as to how rotten one is against the other.
            
            Maybe time to take a long look at the fact it is we the general public that have gotten what we supported and bought into.
            
            In my view, the corruption in politics is on display, they do very little anymore to hide it... They just do not need to.  The American public to a great extent has become sheep.  That is my view, and I think I have come by it rightfully.

            replyreport
         2. 87

            Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

            "Why do Republicans clamor to Trump and tolerate misbehavior which previous generations, maybe even the very same people, a few decades ago, would have viewed as immediately disqualifying?"
            
            I think the statement above provided contains a generalization that might not accurately represent the perspectives and motivations of all Republicans. Is it not more fair, and important to recognize that political beliefs and attitudes can evolve, and individuals within any political group can have diverse reasons for their actions?  Just like any political group, Republicans are not a monolithic entity. There are various factions within the party, and people's reasons for supporting or tolerating a particular leader can differ greatly. Not all Republicans necessarily "clamor" to Trump or "tolerate misbehavior."
            Some Republicans might be drawn to Trump's policy positions, and previous job performance rather than his behavior. They might prioritize issues such as tax reform, deregulation, conservative judiciary appointments, and strong national defense.
            
            
            
            Also, media portrayal can sometimes exaggerate the level of support or tolerance within a political group. Some Republicans might view media coverage as biased against their party and might therefore be more inclined to support their chosen leaders as a form of resistance to perceived media bias.
            
            
            
            It is also true, in my view, partisanship often influences people's perspectives. Supporters of any political figure can sometimes overlook or downplay negative aspects of their chosen leader due to loyalty to their party.
            
            
            
            Many Americans have economic concerns, such as job growth and economic policies, which can influence voters' decisions and affect their willingness to tolerate certain behaviors in leaders. Such as accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior. One might also point out that Biden also has a documented history of what some have called untoward sexual accusations. With at least eight women coming forward with accusations. So, this concern may just leave Republicans needing to excuse this form of behavior due to both men having similar accusations levied at them.
            
            Comparing behaviors from different eras can be problematic, as societal norms and expectations change over time. What might have been considered "disqualifying" behavior in the past might not carry the same weight in the present, especially in a highly polarized political environment?
            
            
            
            Some Republicans might support Trump due to strategic considerations, such as anticipating his popularity among certain voter demographics or seeing him as a way to maintain or gain political power. Due to feeling the country is on the wrong path.
            
            
            
            Simply some Republicans may be able to separate policy positions from personal behavior, choosing to support a leader based on policy alignment rather than personal conduct. People's reasons for supporting a political figure can be diverse and multifaceted.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               Willowarborposted 15 months agoin reply to this

               Fealty to the tribe trumps moral consistency?  In the naked pursuit of power, everything is expendable. In defense of Trump?
               In terms of setting aside values and principles for policy, that's debatable from my view.  Trump was able to pass very little legislation during his time.  I feel that some give him credit because he sat behind the resolute desk as events played out around him and he was therefore given credit.  Most don't accomplish much over a four-year term. He came into office with Obama's policy continuing to play out.  What we're truly Trump's legislative efforts or wins? Pretty much a tax cut for the wealthy. But that's off topic.
               
               Do you believe that the Republican Party has moved away from its "moral majority" days?  Particularly with its embrace of an individual some may consider amoral.

               replyreport
               1. 87

                  Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                  The question of whether the Republican Party has moved away from its "moral majority" days, especially with its acceptance of individuals who might be viewed as amoral, is complex. While there may be instances that suggest a departure from the party's traditional moral stance, it's essential to examine the broader context, the diversity within the party, and the factors that have contributed to this evolution.
                  
                  Firstly, the Republican Party is not monolithic; it comprises a wide spectrum of ideologies and viewpoints. While there may be prominent figures who appear to challenge the party's moral framework, it's important to note that the party is composed of various factions, each with differing priorities and beliefs. Therefore, characterizing the entire party based on the actions of one or a few may not accurately reflect the entirety of its members.
                  
                  In my view, societal norms in America have evolved over time, and the Republican Party has adapted to these shifts, out of necessity.  The concept of morality is also subjective and can vary based on cultural and generational changes.  The Republican Party's changing stance could be a reflection of broader societal changes rather than a complete abandonment of its moral values, in my view. As societies become more diverse and interconnected, political parties may need to reconsider how they address moral issues to remain relevant and inclusive.
                  
                    I feel the Republican Party, has had to make pragmatic decisions to achieve their goals.  Embracing a candidate or policy that might be viewed as amoral by some could be a strategic move driven by considerations beyond individual morality.  Parties often prioritize winning elections, advancing specific policies, or responding to complex challenges, which can lead to the accommodation of individuals who don't perfectly align with the party's historical moral platform. I feel the leadership of a political party plays a significant role in shaping its direction. While some leaders may be associated with a departure from the party's moral roots, it's important to remember that leadership is transient.

                  replyreport
                  1. 57

                     Willowarborposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                     Well it is abundantly clear that the Republican party, with the acceptance of Trump at the helm,  has done in about face in terms of morality as their platform or foundation. What was once reprehensible is now embraced. As a result, I do think they're going to have to step off the moral high ground as far as preaching to the rest of us im regard to the rights and wrongs of social issues and personal decisions.  If that is the direction of the party then so be it.  But the righteous moral indignation needs to come to an end.
                     Yes, leadership is transient but shouldn't be the values of a party remain consistent?

                     replyreport
                     1. 87

                        Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

                        "Yes, leadership is transient but shouldn't be the values of a party remain consistent?"
                        
                        It is evident that the Republican party has no choice to change some values due to --- Again,    In my view, societal norms in America have evolved over time, and the Republican Party has adapted to these shifts, out of necessity.  The concept of morality is also subjective and can vary based on cultural and generational changes.  The Republican Party's changing stance could be a reflection of broader societal changes rather than a complete abandonment of its moral values, in my view.
                        
                        "Well it is abundantly clear that the Republican party, with the acceptance of Trump at the helm,  has done in about face in terms of morality as their platform or foundation."
                        
                        The party has come to back Trump due to recognizing the voice of the people.   I feel the Republican Party, has made pragmatic decisions to achieve its goals at this point, morals set aside...  and supporting a candidate or policy that might be viewed as amoral by some could be a very strategic move driven by considerations beyond individual morality.

                        replyreport
   2. 73

      Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      Until about eight months ago I attended a Southern Baptist church, I'd been a member all my life. What I heard over and over when I ask your question was, "Well, it's the least objectionable of two bad choices." Their reasoning was based on which candidate was anti-abortion. Nothing else mattered.
      
      This is an opinion piece but thought-provoking on the subject of the roles of women in various countries when the limits of morality are finally reached. Would love to hear thoughts on the premise of the article.
      
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … an-rights/

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Willowarborposted 15 months agoin reply to this

         Kathleen, I have hit a paywall but would love to hear a summary if you're inclined.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months agoin reply to this

            "None of this should be surprising. Historically, women have frequently been at the forefront of movements aimed to topple authoritarian regimes. Given the toxic masculinity of many dictators and their drive to subjugate women, women have consistently rebelled against hyper-misogyny and then used their moral standing as wives and mothers to rally a broader coalition of repressed people."
            
            Examples: Israel, Iran, Soviet Union & US Women resisting the MAGA movement.

            replyreport
   3. 87

      tsmogposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      'At this time' . . . I think it is not so much a question of morality. It is a question of self-righteousness.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Willowarborposted 15 months agoin reply to this

         I'd say there's a fair amount of self-righteousness in any party that declares itself the moral majority.

         replyreport
2. 57

   Willowarborposted 15 months ago

   A poll from the Survey Center on American Life of the American Enterprise Institute offers insight into this question: How do Americans weigh a president’s personal qualities against his policies and accomplishments.
   
   The most fascinating part?  The generational difference in how Trump is viewed. Of the Generation Z group (teens and young adults), 59% report evaluating the president based on who he is and what he stands for, with only 40% saying they judge him based on his actions. This is the inverse of the overall survey response. Older folks care less.
   
   Gen Z  are outliers. They appear to be  deeply disgusted by Trump’s character and private behavior and assess him on those traits.
   I find this so interesting because, as a generation, they seem to claim or stand on  the moral high ground a lot less often than say boomers.
   even groups that preach morality sideline those considerations when viewing Trump.
   Why can't we support candidates that match our political ideology but also maintain some level of moral standard?
   
   Another interesting study; This one  examined the 2016 U.S. presidential election, also found that Republicans, but not Democrats, appeared to revise their own moral beliefs to reduce incongruities with Donald Trump.
   
   "A lot of work in political science research shows how voters are often ‘followers,’ adjusting their views on issues to match the messages they get from their party’s leaders. We wanted to see if that pattern extended to moral beliefs as well, as morality is usually assumed to be more stable and thus exerting a causal influence on political preferences such as candidate choice,” explained study authors William Kidd and Joseph A. Vitriol.
   
   . “Many voters revise even their fundamental views of what they describe as right and wrong based on their perceptions of the candidates they support. Ideas and positions that might have seemed out of bounds can become normalized very quickly if they receive support from political leaders.”
   
   Question,  are political leadership and moral leadership one in the same? I think yes and just think of the ramifications.
   
   https://www.psypost.org/2022/01/new-stu … rump-62439

   replyreport
   1. 90

      wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

      "Of the Generation Z group (teens and young adults), 59% report evaluating the president based on who he is and what he stands for, with only 40% saying they judge him based on his actions."
      
      Does this point out that the Gen Z crowd is too young and inexperienced to have figured out that politicians lie whenever their mouth is open?  That the only way to truly understand who a person is, is by looking at their actions rather than the noises they make?
      
      (Personally I do not find "political leadership" to be lying to the public in order to garner votes, and "moral leadership" is found in the actions of a person, not in what they say.)

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Willowarborposted 15 months agoin reply to this

         I think the gist is that the upcoming generation is less willing to accommodate the reprehensible actions of one or some to align with their chosen party affiliation. Seems as though they would rather not make excuses for people.
         Older folks, at least in this study are more willing to do so. More power to this generation.  Wrong is wrong even if the one who is wrong is on your team. Personally, I like this a lot. In my opinion it shows politicians that a vote isn't guaranteed simply because of party affiliation.  Today's generation doesn't seem as interested in twisting themselves into a pretzel for either party when they are given choices that do not mesh with their own values.  That's admirable.

         replyreport
      2. 87

         Sharlee01posted 15 months agoin reply to this

         "(Personally I do not find "political leadership" to be lying to the public in order to garner votes, and "moral leadership" is found in the actions of a person, not in what they say.)"
         
         Agree

         replyreport