Social conservatives and redemption
This Time article by Alex Altland about the Daniels candidacy and marital history contains the following curious passage [emphasis mine]:
In his rare comments about the couple’s reconciliation, Daniels has said, “If you like happy endings, you’ll love our story.” Indeed, although it may not mollify social conservatives who expect their presidential candidates to lead impossibly spotless private lives.
Social conservatives—who often, although not always, are deeply religious—are a group about whom much nonsense has been spouted. Whether the spouters believe what they themselves are saying I really don’t know, but the notion that social conservatives expect their candidates “to lead impossibly spotless private lives” is an absurdity.
First of all, it is possible to lead a fairly spotless private life. But secondly and much more importantly and relevantly, that’s not the demand that either fundamentalist and/or evangelical and/or devout Christians (or orthodox Jews, for that matter, who trend towards conservatism compared to their reform or secular fellows) make of their candidates or of their fellow men and women.
Ever hear of the idea of redemption, reform, repentance, forgiveness, and all that? It’s a rather powerful theme in religious thought, to say the least.
What is not admired or accepted is the hypocrisy of holding oneself out as one thing but practicing another. But sinners who return to the fold (Cheri Daniels, perhaps) and those who lovingly accept them back (Mitch Daniels, it appears) usually are accepted, understood, and even admired, as well as celebrated in song:
Neo, you truly are a rare gift.
Another version of Collins singing “Amazing Grace” is on my ipod and set to play first no matter which playlist I choose. We all are sinning and sinned against, and need constantly to remember G-d’s power to redeem our trespassers and us daily, hourly, minute to minute when need presses us.
Soldier on!
This is a concept that has often bewildered me.
The upshot of this liberal theory seems to be that no degree of insanity or debauchery can be held against one of their own because… well, they never said they had any morals or standards. But, in their own thinking, conservatives have promised to be saints, and if they don’t achieve sainthood that serves to renounce the fundamental assumptions of conservatism.
In practice, this leads to one of the most bizarre conversations I often have with liberals who want to beat on me for being a practicing Catholic. Summary:
Sexual abuse of some children by Catholic priests must be understood as a deep manifestation of the very evil that is Catholic theology, particularly as manifested by the demand that clergy practice celibacy. This sexual abuse cannot be understood as the sin of the individual priest. The sin is collective and destroys the very credibility of Catholic theology.
My response:
OK, the sexual practices of gay men in New York City and San Francisco generated the AIDS crisis that resulted in the deaths of millions of people. Does that reveal something sinister and evil about the very nature of gay men? Should the sexual practices of gay men be condemned? Should the sexual practices of gay men be outlawed?
Dumbfounded response followed by angry denunciation of my “homophobia.”
Sometimes i think liberals are liberals because they see attempting to live honorably in a corrupt world is hypocrisy because it can’t be fully achieved. And they dare think of conservatives and the religious as the black and white thinkers without any areas of grey.
SteveH,
But they think that if they are in charge they will get rid of the corruption so they will never again be confronted with moral problems.
OT: Neo, did you see the article by Newt’s daughter linked at Hot Air? Some of the comments to the article were pretty nasty.
I think this goes back to a theme I’ve referenced a couple of times before on this blog. When LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, he supposedly said, “now we’re going to lose the south for a generation”. if that turned out to be true, then the Democrat Party realized they had a huge hole to fill from the loss of many southern Democrats. So they actively started to embrace all the disaffected radicals in society that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s: college students protesting the Vietnam War; radical feminists; environmental extremists; gay rights advocates, and the outright Marxists who had infected academia and Hollywood.
But two groups who had been fairly loyal Democrats up to that point were the Neocons and many religious leaders. The Neocons almost immediately rejected the strategy by the Democrats to embrace the radicals and quickly switched parties. The religious leaders weren’t far behind the neocons. By 1980, the Republicans had formed an alliance with the religious leaders, especially in the south, as well.
Pat Robertson had been a life long Democrat until then. He became a staunch Republican. Jerry Fallwell started the Moral Majority during that era and became active in Republican politics. Same with Oral Roberts. And so on. These religious leaders, some former lifelong Democrats, became known as the “Religious Right”. And anybody who was a Republican was considered to be part of the “Religious Right” by Democrats.
So any time a Republican was caught not living up to the highest of religious principles, the Left and the Democrats would cry hypocrisy. I don’t think it is Republican social conservatives who hold their candidates to impossibly high standards. I think it is the Democrats who do. That way when a Republican does not live up to those impossibly high standards, the Democrats cry hypocrisy and use it as a political weapon against the Republicans.
That’s how Democrats roll.
neo, I couldn’t agree more with your comments. I have no problems as a social conservative with sinners and confessions of sin. I have some trouble with blame-shifters and hedgers and similar weasels, which gives all the reason I need to avoid Newt. When given a chance to explain his marital problems of the past, he had two good answers: 1) none of your business, or 2) I screwed up, my fault, no excuses. He chose neither and lost my vote. Same with Romney and health care. So far I see no ability on his part to admit he was wrong, and in light of the current CinC, that is enough to put me off.
As I mentioned yesterday, Daniels has been blindsided by an issue that is potentially more politically serious than his marital history. Libertarians are livid about what his Supreme Court appointee has done.
Oh give me a home where chickens don’t come home and roost and poop on my parade.
Chickens!
gs:
Yes, I saw that story. That decision is as appalling as Kelo. If it isn’t overturned by the Supreme Court, we just took a giant step towards a full-blown police state.
I didn’t know much about Mitch Daniels and I don’t care about his marriage, but the fact that he appointed a judge who could issue a ruling like that speaks volumes about his lack of judgment. That he hasn’t vehemently denounced the decision tells me that he is just another member of the ruling class elite.
http://minx.cc/?post=316160
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=186124
Well spoken Neo.
If Daniels opts to run I hope that he and his wife are very strong, as they will need to be. However, if they are; if they can face the mob arm in arm, and with heads high, I simply don’t see how their marriage history can hurt him. Attacks could seriously backfire.
On the subject of Daniel’s Court Appointee, I doubt seriously that Daniels ever expected such a vote.
It is a fortunate Governor or President who doesn’t get blind-sided by at least one nominee.
I think the idea that social conservatives will reject “sinners” as candidates is mostly wishful thinking and/or projection by the left. They hope that’s what will happen, especially to a potentially successful candidate like Daniels.
But has it actually ever happened? I can’t honestly think of a conservative who was abandoned by the social conservatives simply over some personal matter.
As a child I always was upset with the Bible story of the prodigal son. In my view, the faithful son got screwed.
Do social conservatives want their leaders to lead impossibly spotless lives? No. They do want their leaders to be pretty clean. However, keeping marriage vows, telling the truth, and generally obeying the law should be fairly easy things to do, and that is really all that is expected. Millions of people live their lives this way–just not many journalists or politicians, it seems.
Just as important, social conservatives want their leaders to be real. They are willing to forgive quite a bit if they think that they aren’t being played for fools. This is where people like Mark Sanford failed. The adultery was bad enough. However, the brazenness of his actions while he was at the same time trying to con everyone into believing that his marriage was still intact and that there was nothing amiss was too much for many people to bear. It wasn’t just that he made a mistake–it was that his whole life was a sham. How can you trust such a man?
1. rickl Says: I didn’t know much about Mitch Daniels and I don’t care about his marriage, but the fact that he appointed a judge who could issue a ruling like that speaks volumes about his lack of judgment. That he hasn’t vehemently denounced the decision tells me that he is just another member of the ruling class elite.
Oldflyer Says: On the subject of Daniel’s Court Appointee, I doubt seriously that Daniels ever expected such a vote. It is a fortunate Governor or President who doesn’t get blind-sided by at least one nominee.
The decision was announced very recently. If Daniels does not promptly denounce it–by ‘promptly’, I mean without polls, focus groups, etc–then afaic he is just another ruling-class commissar.
2. Afaic, from the perspective of the inalienable right to self-defense, the standing of a police officer who enters a home illegally is no different from the standing of an armed intruder who behaves like the officer does.
3. Mr. Frank Says: As a child I always was upset with the Bible story of the prodigal son. In my view, the faithful son got screwed.
? (boldface mine)—31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
“…social conservatives who expect their presidential candidates to lead impossibly spotless private lives”
It’s the media that requires an impossibly spotless life for Republicans and conservative/religious leaders. They love the “gotcha” when someone with professed moral standards or values slips up, and are sure to broadcast it far and wide and tell us how disappointed we should be. When it’s someone whose values are relative, well, then it’s no big deal.
This is why Clinton’s and Edwards’ affairs were a private family matter, while Gingrich’s and Daniels’ marriages are a serious character issue. They’re especially gleeful when it’s the child that slips up, such as Bristol Palin.
gs,
Thanks for the info. As a kid I thought the prodigal son got all the inheritance and a party to boot.
I’m glad to be of service, Mr. Frank.
I suspect that the prodigal son’s share of the property was nowhere close to half, but someone who knows Jewish practice of the era may correct me.
I’m not a social conservative. Live and let live is fine by me, as long as there is no harm there is no foul. I’m not so high as to judge others if they cause no harm to others. However, I expect individuals to say what they mean and mean what they say.
Gingrich IMO has serious character flaws. Daniels, gets some slack as far as I am concerned. I don’t want him on the ticket, but if he is he is far superior to BHO and many of the other GOP hopefuls, especially Romney.
Oldflyer says, “It is a fortunate Governor or President who doesn’t get blind-sided by at least one nominee.”
Yes.
The first-born son got 2 shares of the estate, the others one share. If there were two sons, the estate was divided into thirds, the first-born got two shares (2/3), the younger one share (1/3). If there were three sons, the oldest got 1/2, the other two 1/4, and so on. Daughters were not originally provided for in the estate of their father, they were supposed to be married and provided for by their husbands. At some point in time, the rabbis ruled that support of unmarried daugthers was a charge on the estate, that is, they were to be supported by the income of the estate. I don’t recall whether that was before or after the time of Jesus.
Yes, the original rule made life very tough for unmarried women — that’s why the Bible so frequently commands that we provide for widows and orphans.
On that biblical note, I wonder what evangelicals will think of Mitch and Cherie doing that which is explicitly forbidden in the Bible. Duet. 24:4
Speaking of honesty, repentance, and redemption:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSDAXGXGiEw
1. bon homme richard, you’re right, thanks.
Though I’m barely resisting the urge to argue hypotheticals…
2. Parker, you and oldflyer are calm voices of prudence wrt Daniels. It does not follow (and you do not claim) that, after being blindsided, Daniels should act as though nothing happened.
bon homme Richard:
Here’s a take at that prohibition against marrying the same woman twice. It prohibits a man, who disgraces his wife by exposing a health condition from marrying her again.
http://zondervan.typepad.com/koinonia/2008/11/hebrew-corner-11-divorce-deut-241-4-by-john-h-walton.html
Excerpts:
More likely it is a reference to a distasteful condition. For example, if a woman had a menstrual dysfunction and was regularly bleeding, she would be rendered perpetually unclean and could not be approached by her husband for childbearing (cf. Lev 15:14, 25).
[R]esults of the study of the hutqattel both semantically and morphologically lead to the conclusion that with this verb it should be translated “she has been made to declare herself (or consider herself) to be unclean.” In other words, the first husband’s divorce action had exposed her condition. Since he was the one who had forced her to publically declare herself unclean, he is not allowed to marry her again.
Evangelicals also do not follow the law (Torah). That’s their first and foremost message: That Christ fulfilled the law. It does leave them with the problem then of what law to follow and they gather as much as they can from the Gospels and the New Testament. But those do not provide a complete system and so they, for the most part unconsciously, incorporate the Old Testament but without the Hebrew understanding.
Parker, just a quick word why a “live and let live” attitude is not allowed in , say, Orthodox Judaism, and extrapolating from there, is not allowed anywhere. The idea of “harm” is always too ambiguous.
According to the Judaism, the Jews as a nation, a people, contracted with God who deals with them corporately. The sin of one affects all.
You can see the reason: God, if he exists and is involved in the affairs of man, either passively through his laws of nature he has ordained or through more active means, is a factor and even if no other person is “harmed” directly, God is harmed when his property, his creation, rebels against his instructions.
There is harm not only from what we do but what we don’t do. For instance, are you harmed when young adults do not show you respect? If you are walking along a sidewalk and they do not respectfully acknowledge you and provide you a path, there is a claim that you have been harmed. Do you at this point feel slighted or do you shrug your shoulders and say “live and let live?” And who do you blame? The kids or the adults who did not care to raise them properly?
The live and let live doctrine is filled with many inconsistencies and impossibilities.