Monday, April 24, 2017

Conservatives and the moral high ground

I had read the column by J. Pepper Bryars earlier in the week with my AL.com application on my smart phone and could barely restrain myself from writing before it was published in the Huntsville Times.

What follows is my letter to the editor on the matter.

On the one hand, I agree with his observation of the apparent hypocrisy in the conservative "acceptance" of Donald Trump's moral turpitude with respect to his three marriages.

I disagree, on the other hand, with his premise that seems to say that conservatives have traditionally held the high ground when it comes to moral decisions, that we live in a world of black and white choices where there generally are no shades of gray.

Let's review some history and see where conservatives have found themselves.

Slavery -- conservatives argued for the peculiar institution.
Emancipation -- conservatives opposed freeing of the slaves.
13th amendment -- conservatives opposed granting citizenship to the freed slaves.
Women's rights -- conservatives opposed "giving" women the right to vote.
Labor law -- conservatives have always sided with management with regard to worker rights.  They generally have opposed unions and that whole "collective bargaining" thing.
Child labor -- where were the conservatives advocating for the elimination of children working in sweatshops (and worse)?
Civil rights -- guess who opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of the 1960s.
Vietnam War -- now here's one where neither party has a corner on the right side of history.  Eisenhower started with military advisers, Kennedy ramped up, Johnson took us all the way in, Nixon slowly and painfully removed us (but not until he'd won a second term).  Still, there were few "conservatives" to be found in the anti war movement.
Equal Rights Amendment -- conservatives claim unnecessary, but women still don't earn as much as men in the same job.  Passed the senate in 1972, but failed to carry three fourths of the states in the ratification process.

As for living in a world where there are few shades of gray:

  1. Consider how we all recognize national sovereignty (especially our own) but are wrestling with certain countries (Syria, North Korea, Iran) that could really stand a change in regime.  A word of caution:  we've tried regime change in other countries before and that has worked so well for us, hasn't it?
  2. Health care -- a right?  a privilege?  Oh, Mr. Byars, don't think I've forgotten your previous column where you claimed the system in Europe is in tatters but we have the greatest healthcare system on earth.  Both claims should be reviewed with the actual data.
  3. Russia -- friend or foe?
  4. China -- our administration wants its help in dealing with North Korea, but has everyone forgotten about what China is doing in the South China Sea?
  5. Israel -- ally, worthy recipient of our aid, but serial abuser of Palestinian rights.
I hope I've made my points.  Conservatives cannot claim the moral high ground.  The world is full of shades of gray.  Moral dilemmas abound.

What do you think?