- Conservative opponents’ bollocks reasoning (definition #2 please)
- The conservative anti-Trump / anti-Roy Moore reasoning thinks it encompasses “the big picture”
- Theirs is fundamentally a conceit, not in keeping with the full scope of the Bible for one thing
- It is their reasoning that is more static as it pretends not to be
- We have to make decisions based on the foreseeable human condition
The Federalist has not come out and opposed Roy Moore but its editor(s) have provided ample space for those of its stable of writers opposed to his being elected. Perhaps it is with the confidence that the truth will out. We would hope to be a little more circumspect about purveying goofy reasoning from a writer normally quite sound. While we can all produce clunkers the conclusion of senior writer Georgi Boorman in today’s offering amounts to a quota of bricks.
If You Want To Drain The Swamp, Put Character First When Voting
You think it’s bad now? Wait ‘til you throw even a shred of a standard of decency out the window for the greater good of your tribe.
Her reasoning, (in our humble judgement) while decrying it in others evidences a boxed-in reasoning and outlook of her own, insufficiently Christian, presumptive of the future, ignoring of cards on the table and a preposterous reduction of what is at stake to “tribal”.
Excerpts:
Ben Shapiro responded Tuesday to D.C. McAllister’s argument justifying voting for immoral people because they can accomplish good things. He wrote, “[McAllister’s] best argument is her first: there are character flaws that matter, and ones that matter less; that there are ends that justify certain means; that an evil outcome may be so immediate as to justify using bad men to stop it.” True.
Unfortunately, McAllister has put this type of moral decision in a box. She argued, “I’d rather have a [sexually immoral] hypocrite who will stop the murder of millions of babies than a virginal man who leads countless to the slaughter.” If that’s the last decision we’ll ever make as voters, and the outcomes were assured, of course we should vote for the hypocrite.
This is short-sighted argument that ignores what she later admits, but glosses over, in her piece: “These immoralities… could, through consequences, impact his public decision-making or influence, ripping from him his moral authority.” She also concedes that “we should want people in power and even our associations who are good, moral, and upstanding. We will all be better for it. This is logical and morally consistent.”
She concludes preemptively that Never Trumpers have been right against all evidence, that flwed people can be decent political leaders and effectuate change for the good. Moore
“On a certain level, given the current climate of sexual assault allegations, the Never Trump argument for character is more persuasive now than it’s ever been. If you already knowingly put a sexual assailant in the White House, why not have another in the Senate?”
The Federalist chose to illustrate Ms Boorman’s article with an overlay of the editorial position of The Birmingham News to illustrate the moral righteousness claimed within. The un-boxed “moral clarity” might have been portrayed better if readers were also told that the same newspaper endorsed Hillary Clinton over Trump. No so-called third-party vote of conscience mind you, but a call to vote for Hillary Clinton.
We really do not know where to begin with Ms Boorman. Neither moral nor political strategist is she. The presumption of guilt and the fullness and accuracy of the innuendo attached would be a place to start not to mention the availability and practicality of due process in due time after an election where the Republican Governor, a woman, would appoint a replacement should Moore be shown to be guilty of any crime or ejected by the moral paragons in the Senate. No, Ms Boorman essentially says the Democrat is morally superior, comparatively more moral personally and in policy advocacy because of accusations against Moore. That is the inextricable conclusion from her article. There isn’t even a clarification to write-in an alternative Republican.
As a whole, there is nothing morally superior about facilitating the election of a Democrat particularly given the closeness of votes in the US Senate. The Democrat Party is reprehensible in so many ways as to what it specifically fosters not to mention the cultural destruction it is cavalier about when not fiendish in pursuing. Championing their platform as Doug Jones does is more evidence of moral turpitude, being a reprobate than anything we know about Roy Moore. Reducing this election to tribalism, one is as good as another, is absurd. There is a moral calculus and it weighs heavily for Roy Moore as a practical matter and against any Democrat. Nothing is thrown out the window by electing Roy Moore only logic and the shattering of the bigger picture by not doing so given the practical choices. Elections should be about policy, party and performance not accusations about personality.
R Mall
