« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Sad Story of Steve McNair: The Moralizers Were Right

Perhaps We Should Not Be So Hard On People Who Say Cheating On Your Wife Is A Bad Thing

My initial reaction, besides horror, to the shooting death of former Tennessee Titans quarterback Steve McNair was to try to hide from the story. I was always a fan of McNair, and will never forget the heartbreak of the Titans’ just-a-yard-short drive against the Rams in the Super Bowl. Like Kirby Puckett, McNair was a guy whose virtues on and around the field of play were such that I’d prefer to remember him only as he was in uniform.

That said, the saga of McNair’s death at the too-young age of 36 is the proverbial train wreck you can’t look away from, and the details are ugly: McNair was involved with a 20-year-old mistress while he was married to his wife of 12 years, with whom he had four children. From what we can tell, his mistress thought he was leaving his wife, and his wife didn’t know about the mistress. McNair’s death has been ruled a homicide, and while the police haven’t wrapped up the investigation, it appears that the mistress shot him and turned the gun – which she had purchased days earlier – on herself. The motive for the killing is likewise murky, but the obvious likely explanation is that McNair’s deceptions in one sense or another caught up to him.

The McNair story brought me back yet again to the downfall of Mark Sanford and a basic point that the cultural Left, with its pervasive hold on our culture, has fundamentally wrong.

You will recall that the main criticism of guys like Sanford from the left is that they are “moralizers” – i.e., speak out on behalf of traditional sexual mores and ‘family values,’ such as not shacking up with a woman not your wife, especially if you are already married. The argument, sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit, is that the real sin of political and cultural leaders is not cheating on their own wives but telling other people that cheating on your wife is a bad thing.

Now, of course any system of moral values, and any discussion of right and wrong in government policy, inherently involves religion, as the foundation of pretty much everyone’s moral thinking is their religion or irreligion. That being said, it can’t be stressed often enough that when our leaders speak out against things like marital infidelity, what they are doing is not just abstract moral philosophy but rather bringing to bear the prudence and wisdom of human experience. Which is where McNair comes into the picture. We know, from many thousands of years of human experience, that cheating on your wife opens up a whole world of hazards and complications and deceptions, and that many bad consequences flow to everyone involved that could otherwise have been avoided. If Mark Sanford hadn’t cheated on his wife, he’d still be a presidential candidate. If Steve McNair hadn’t cheated on his wife, he’d still be alive. If Eliot Spitzer hadn’t cheated on his wife, he’d still be Governor of New York. And on and on and on throughout the ages. The story is all the sadder when men like Sanford and McNair, who had been models of integrity and professionalism in their professional lives, throw it all away over such foolishness. Promiscuous sex, sex among teenagers, prostitution, divorce…we know, and we see, the costs of these things played out again and again and again, and the job of adults, wise in the world by virtue of experience, is to impart to others those lessons, to impart knowledge that comes from human experience and acts as a restraint on the most common of impulses. When the leaders of our society, government and culture speak out on these issues, they are performing that valuable service. Would that someone had gotten that message through at some point to Steve McNair; would that Mark Sanford had listened to his own advice. And shame on anyone who wants to drive the wisdom of experience out of the public square.

The usual rejoinder at this point is to complain that of course it’s all well and good for people to teach morality in the privacy of their own homes, but that people in politics and government have no business getting involved in private matters. As I have noted repeatedly over the years, that’s an easier argument to make when government is small and less intrusive, and laughable coming from people who want to make it larger and more intimately involved in everyday life, but besides that, the very fact that things like adultery are largely beyond the reach of the law is precisely why they remain properly within the reach of the culture, and why it’s a good thing to have prominent people speaking out on such issues.

Maybe McNair, and Sanford, and Spitzer, and so many, many others would never have listened. Human beings are sinful by nature, and desire is strong. But the whole point of civilized society is to make a concerted, collective effort to pass on what we have learned over human history about the restraints we must place upon our instincts if we are to avoid similar tragedies, if we are to act as reasoning moral agents rather than animals driven only by impulse. Being a ‘moralizer’ about those restraints may not be the popular path, but it’s the path of wisdom and maturity. We should be happy for anyone still willing to do that job.

COMMENTS

  • azaeroprof

    Wilt Chamberlain in in the basketball Hall of Fame.

    John F. Kennedy is a martyr and considered by some as an American hero.

    Bill Clinton is a former two-term President and a multi-millionaire.

    It’s difficult to get people to see your point when some of these serial adulterers are revered for their dalliances.

    Sad state of “affairs”

    • Dan McLaughlin

      is also one of only two Presidents to be impeached. Clinton would surely have been better off without the affairs.

      The absence of bad consequences for some people does not equal a lack of likelihood of bad consequences generally.

      • Darin_H

        Ok, so maybe that was a good thing… :)

      • azaeroprof

        and I agree with your diary. I was just lamenting the fact that the consequences of such activity are not evenly felt by the offending parties. Yes, Bill Clinton was impeached, but a substantial number of folks still view him as some kind of hero and don’t give a hoot about the serial adultery or the impeachment. Yet Steve McNair, whose participation in adultery was likely much shorter and smaller than Bill Clinton’s, paid with his life.

  • janis

    painful one to watch over the past few days since the bodies of McNair and his mistress were found. Steve McNair has always been such a beloved and respected figure in Nashville, both as a player and as a community leader. The sordid way in which he died is not something that will ever be forgotten and my heart goes out to his four sons in particular. What a painful and horrid legacy to leave your children.

    Jeff Fisher, coach of the the Titans, gave a very good eulogy yesterday in which he painfully and pointedly spoke for the “Steve McNair I knew” and in which he asked forgiveness from Mrs. McNair and his sons. It, like so many other remembrances of McNair, was just so hard to watch and listen to, knowing that a good man did something so needless and selfish and it cost him his life. This has really been a sad, sad month or so of watching good men–leaders all– being betrayed by their baser instincts.

  • Bob_Frazier

    The liberal response would have been to be sure they had access to condoms and reproductive health care……

    Funny how that would not have fixed any of this.

    • janis

      And then his mistress couldn’t have bought a gun–except that yes she could since she bought it from a private seller and not a gun shop.

      • http://www.marklaiminger.org Lammo

        the spurned lover will have to resort to driving a Government Motors mandated econocar into the path of a semi or one of Harry Reid’s oncoming trains. :-)

    • http://www.marklaiminger.org Lammo

      to condoms and reproductive “health care” (which I read as a euphemism for abortion) are what led to this. Pope Paul VI predicted it with amazing clarity (prophetic if you ask me) in the 60s.

  • Ward_Off_Monkey

    You did an excellent job of outlining why morality should be a cultural/societal issue and not just a private one. I have often heard from my more liberal friends that you can’t legislate morality and my response has always been that all laws essentially legislate society’s accepted moral code in some way by indicating what you can do that is within the law and what you can’t do that is outside the law.

    I am not saying that legislated morality would have prevented McNair’s death or Sanford’s fall, but the argument that morality should be kept out of the public forum most certainly has made these types of dalliances seem more acceptable in today’s society and thus contributed to both.

  • simontemplar

    Your on to something…this is the main tenet of post modern liberalism…individual actions do not inherently have moral consequences..those consequences when they do occur must be collectivized and are the product of an uptight, moralistic and suppressive society. There is no shame…and if you shame someone for thier behavior then you are the problem..your being judgmental. This load of crap has been sold on the Oprah circuit for thirty years. Thus, we have skyrocketing unwed mothers, dead beat dads, soaring teen age pregnancy, divorce at 50 percent, and on and on. Guess who pays for this..you! Shame on you for complaining about it.

    • ColdWarrior

      I told a story in another thread about the brand-spanking new Harvard Law School grad, and Clinton campaigner, I worked with for a while right after the 1992 election. He had admitted to me he had never read the entire Declaration of Indpendence. He fit the post modernist template perfectly.

      He was a non-practicing Jew.

      He was a pure academic — he couldn’t tell a screw driver from pliers, but he knew that eveyone needed to be forced to use low-flow toilets.

      And he matter-of-factly explained to me how Hitler’s “Final Solution” was not something that Hitler could be blamed for, or punished for, because it was done “legally.” “The German people” had approved it “legally,” so it was okay.

      I’m not making this up.

      Oh, and was a vegetarian because he respected all forms of life. When I asked him whether he was tortured by the knowledge that while driving to work each day he was crushing to death countless ants, it was clear from the look on his face he hadn’t thought about it, but he admitted he didn’t like the idea of killing ants. I explained to him that he could greatly reduce the ant holocaust if carefully walked to the office or rode his bicycle, and he could really take a stand for the ants if he sold his car.

      It was at about this point that I stopped discussing anything non-work related witth him. The frightening thing is that his goal in life was to get elected to the U.S. Senate.

      Thank you.

      • nessa

        He’s already there right? if not it’s a shame, dingy Harry would love him!

        • ColdWarrior

          I believe he’s still in southern California, so he’s not a senator from that lovely state.

          It also depends upon whether he still exists. Maybe his tortured thinking caused him to take the test I suggested to him. He actually told me he didn’t think we could definitively prove that we actually exist. I told him I could prove that he, at least, did exist. I told him to go to the roof of the nine-story building we worked in and jump. We’d have the answer when he hit the ground.

          At that time he could not give me a cogent rationale for not taking my test.

          A is A. Existence exists.

          Thank you.

          • nessa

            if he’s still there he blends in so well with the populace we could never pick him out. 20 Years in the Army insulated me from the rest of the Nation. SoCal has been a brutal introduction to the actual state of affairs in America.

      • Dan McLaughlin

        well, don’t hold that guy against me ;) But I did go to law school with an awful lot of those types of people.

    • alexandriatulips

      n/t

  • Warrior

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m totally with you. But really, is there any going back?

    For the last several days we have witnessed the sorry spectacle of a multi-million dollar send-off for a guy who couldn’t even live in the country due to possible charges of child molestation. Every “news” channel is aflame with tributes to the King of Pop who bragged about sleeping w/underage boys. And any breath about his “lifestyle” brings hoots of “judgementalism” and “hater!”

    Yes, sexual incontinence outside of marital relations is a risky proposition on many levels. Unfortunately, to most post modern Americans, immorality is the least of these conscerns. No one wants to run the gauntlet of PC abuse in order to espouse anything approaching “morality.” And as you point out, of course a molral code based on self-restraint is difficult to live up to. If it were easy, it would not require moral courage at all – only run-of-the-mill good judgement.

    So natuarlly, anyone proclaiming moral values is in danger of being ridiculed by the oh-so-open-minded left should he or she fall. But what’s the alternative? I have often argued that we are living on the moral capital of a past Christian society. Many social mores and much social structure is mere habit — moral behavior left-over from our parents’ generation.

    Because without absolutes, whatever the state says is permissible is O.K. If the state believes your house, healthcare, automobile or income should be given to someone ealse, who’s to say it isn’t w/o a Judeo-Christian work ethic and the Ten Commandments in play. Do not steal — why not?

    I sincerely believe most libs don’t really know what they are asking for. When someone comes for their pet material possession, or says their mother can’t have life-saving surgery, or their baby can’t be born because of a birth defect, they are very likely going to think quite differently. Unfortunately for all of us, it will be too late then.

    That’s whay Obama wants everything, from heathcare to cap and trade, done before September. Before people understand exactly what it is he is doing. McNair’s death, Sanford’s fall, etc., are really no different, from a moral perspective, than taking bribes, stealing or not paying taxes — of which recent examples are legion.

    My Prescription for libs attached to Obama’s course of action is to read at least one book by Theodore Dalrymple. Writing around the turn of the twentieth century from the perspective of socialist, welfare benighted Britain, his works give an excellent roadmap to exactly where we as a nation are headed. There is yet time, but it is slipping away…

    • Dan McLaughlin

      We can light a candle, if only to push back a little of the darkness.

    • jcincy

      The divide between good and evil, light and dark, bitter and sweet deepens. Great clarity and polarization is coming to this nation. Those who have been hiding in shades of gray are now being revealed. We are reaching an either/or moment in this land. Everything that can be shaken will shaken… shaken to the foundation America is resilient, she will return to her original foundation.

  • Tbone

    despite good advice and massive historical evidence to the contrary was an action item on God’s Daily Agenda a couple of thousand years ago.

    After a rather lengthy list of Whereases, it was “Now, therefore be it resolved that if we can”t change them we can at least offer to save them”.

  • BooBooKitty

    There may be a lot more to this story including a jealous boyfriend and a mysterious time lapse between the time the bodies were discovered and the police were notified- but one thing is for sure, like many violent deaths the whole sordid mess was soaked in alcohol.

  • Flagstaff

    Just because some members don’t live up to it doesn’t mean the standards are bad, only that humans ar fallible.

    And the fact that the humans are reprimanded for it proves the standards are correct.

    • nessa

      You know, promises like more transparency, the ability for citizens (and I assume lawmakers) to actually read proposed legislation before it’s voted on, no additional taxes for those eanring under $250,000, powerful vote buying stuff like that. It would also force them to say the same old boring thing everywhere they went rather than tailoring their comments to their audiences, telling Left coast Lib elites about the Bible and gun clinging idiots in fly over country, praising coal in West Virginia and promising to eliminate it when talking to the seirra club, that kind of stuff really narrows the possibilities in a campaign.

  • TheSophist

    While I love your clear writing style, Dan, in the instant case, I’m not entirely sure what you’re suggesting.

    First, is your premise that morality is “wisdom of experience”? That has a remarkably utilitarian ring to it that I’m puzzled when you bring religion or irreligion into it.

    Do we consider the Ten Commandments to be simply collected wisdom of experience based on many thousands of years of human experience? Is that the basis of morality? Then what’s religion got to do with it?

    Down this path, I see no real basis for claiming something to be moral or immoral — a thing is either pragmatic or nonpragmatic, filled with risk or relatively safe. If cheating on your spouse is to be avoided because it tends to lead to Bad Things, then someone choosing to do so is merely willing to accept higher risk.

    Furthermore, under your formulation, smoking cigarettes is immoral, because the collected wisdom of experience suggests that smoking leads to many Bad Things. Or eating fatty foods. Or living in bad parts of town. Maybe politicians need to be moralizing on those topics to us? It’s a short step from there to passing some legislation….

    Also, if the reason I don’t cheat on my wife is because I’m afraid of being shot to death, or because I have political aspirations… is that moral behavior?

    Second, if your answer is that actually, morality stems from universal absolutes derived either from faith or natural law or whatever, and is not simply an expression of pragmatism, then we have to tread rather carefully with who gets to moralize and to whom.

    I for one don’t mind if ministers moralize up and down the street. That’s their job. If parents want to moralize to their kids, that’s fine too. If strangers want to moralize to me, maybe I’d welcome it, and maybe I’d tell ‘em to mind their own business. If politicians want to moralize… well now, we’re talking about folks who have control over FORCE. I’d much rather they think carefully on such things.

    Yes, all legislation and all policies are rooted ultimately in a culture’s moral values. Ours happens (so far anyhow) to be Judeo-Christian. But speaking even as a Christian, I’d really rather folks who control the monopoly on violence to appeal more to the shared values of the Republic than their own views of morality. Maybe I’d agree with them, and maybe I wouldn’t.

    Pragmatism may enter here far more comfortably. Encouraging single mothers via our welfare system has had significant negative effects. Arguing against the welfare state based on impact strikes me as perfectly rational. Arguing against it because God Wills It Thus strikes me as perfect nonsense.

    Third, are we as Republicans or as Conservatives so unwilling to separate the personal and the political? Have we become like the feminists of old, claiming “The Personal IS the Political” at every turn?

    I don’t know about you, but I would much rather have a cheatin’ President Sanford than the faithful President Obama. The former might be hurting his wife, but the latter is hurting me and my kids.

    Finally, how is Sanford and McNair even in the same sentence? Sanford did moralize, yes? The political sin, then, is hypocrisy. Did McNair moralize about the sanctity of marriage and the importance of traditional moral values? I’m not aware of it, being not in Nashville — maybe he did. But one guy just got embarrassed, and if he were a Democrat, he’d have a solid political future. The other guy lost his life. How are the two even close to being on equal footing?

    Sorry, Dan — with all respect and positivity, I urge you to rethink what you really mean here.

    -TS

    • aesthete

      I have no problem with someone whose personal rationale for supporting a given policy are religious in nature, but if that person cannot articulate a solid line of reasoning for why said policy should be adopted without referencing his/her religious texts, I can’t say that such a policy should be adopted.

      Also, I agree that we shouldn’t mix issues that are inherently personal and intimate with politics. The sin was not against me or mine, but against his wife, and though I hope that he will be enough of a man to truly make amends, I don’t harbor much concern for the behavior of a politician inasmuch as it doesn’t affect me. More offensive to the public should be the Governor’s continuing (and nauseating) attempts to construct a narrative more favorable to him about a “forbidden love”, favorable comparisons to King David, and so on.

      I love Dan, and will continue to read him, but I can’t say that I’m a fan of this piece.

    • Warrior

      Although we value, and rightly so, a goverrnent without a state church, ALL politics (and law) is, or should be, based on immutable and transcendent spiritual truth. Yes, it’s subjective, since any God worth having cannot be totally known to Man.

      Unlike the feminists however, “The Truth, not the personal, is (or should be) political.” At one time in this country, most people believed in a Judeo-Christian God and all the attendant truths put forth therefrom. If we choose to veer from that basis, as many now so anxiously do, I certainly hope we have something equally benevolent to take its’ place. Socialism? Communism? Nazism? Secularism? The latter seems most likely, so be prepared for a huge diminution in the perceived sanctity of life, young and old.

      Why mention Sanford and McNair in the same breath? Because they both transgressed the same Commandment. However, transgressing Commandments is all the same to the Father of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Cheating on one’s wife, taking bribes, stealing, murder — it’s all the same to our Judeo-Christian God. One man was killed and another shamed, but they both transgressed. The only difference is Sanford is lucky enough to have time for repentance in this life. Mr. Mcnair is not so lucky. Maybe he was a Chritian before and his behavior will be covered by Grace. I hope so.

      But in the larger picture, all of these things are indicia of a crumbling society. The encomiums for Elvis were quite over the top, IMHO. How much more so are those for M. Jackson? As a society, we looked away when Elvis died of a drug overdose. Now, it’s durg use and immoral sexual practices we ignore.

      As I indicated above, next it will be euthanasia and pedophiles as a “protected class.” Make no mistake, societal approval of, or at least acquiescence to, more and more of what heretofore were considered moral transgressions, like elections, will have consequences. And they won’t be pretty.

      I’ve said many times, we, as a societry, are living on the moral capital of two hundred years of Christian-inspired behavior and mores. At some point, that capital will be exhausted. Do we really want to replace it with an “If it feels good, do it” 1960′s era mentality?