And now for something completely different.
I am hardly the first to write about this subject, but I’ve had this subject rolling around in my head for a few weeks now…I want to talk with you (hopefully in the comments) about the collectivist philosophy of the Left. Specifically, I want to talk to you about the difference in public treatment of collectivists who have moral failings (think Bill Clinton, for example; or possibly Eliot Spitzer for a more recent example), and the public treatment of conservatives who have moral failings (Mark Sanford, Larry Craig, John Ensign, etcetera).
It seems to me that the public, conservatives and others, all condemn the moral failings of conservatives. This could possibly be seen as a hatred of hypocrisy; certainly it is difficult to defend the immoral actions of a man who has a long public record of advocating morality. Can any of us really blame the non-conservative, then, for at least noting the failure of a conservative to live up to his own standard?
I mean that rhetorically of course; we all note that failure as a matter of course, and I don’t think we could legitimately deny non-conservatives that ability. But is it a failure of the standard, or of the standard-bearer? Does the failure of a conservative individual mean that conservatism itself has failed? Does it mean that conservatism is a bogus standard? Should we not have conservatism as a goal, even though it is difficult to reach?
I think of what Tom Landry used to say to the press: Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.
Read More →