If you Google “new morality,” you will undoubtedly find references to religion and various decades where there were major morality shifts, like the 20’s and 60’s. These shifts gain more or less significance in the related articles depending on the point of reference. A church or religion might take a hard stance on abortion or homosexuality, where another group might deem racial equality or promiscuity to be of more significance. Priorities are based on the goals or mindset of the group.
In the decade of the 1920’s, women got the right to vote, sexual mores were relaxed, and alcohol was declared illegal. All of these things are perceived to have affected the moral code of our nation. Prohibition initially lowered alcohol consumption but had the adverse effect of a rise in crime.
The 60’s were another matter. The end of segregation, the improved equality for women, higher levels of social tolerance for homosexuality, environmental awareness, and a heightened respect for other cultures were seen as advancements. They were all examples of milestone changes of the preexisting moral precepts.
In all of this analysis of morality, without regard to specifics, the underlying factor is the moral code of right vs. wrong. All of us have an innate perception of what is right and what is wrong even if we can’t seem to find a strict definition. Common decency comes to mind here where the word “common” is key. Common connotes acceptance. This acceptance can come from peer groups, social observations, education, parental guidance, or the like.
If we view the first nineteen years of this century and look further back to the last century we find a trend that would indicate a major overall shift in what is acceptable when viewed through the lens of common decency. This shift does not look specifically at individual measures but at what we deem to be acceptable behavior.
We have come to accept that our politicians lie with alacrity. When caught in the lie they will try to “spin the story” to lessen the impact of the lie or distract from its importance. What we used to swallow with a “grain of salt” we now must smother in a gravy made of “who cares” and Chinese-five-spice.
We have also changed the entire political landscape whereby bribery is no longer illegal but condoned. We can’t call it a bribe as it is now referred to as a “campaign finance donation.” What’s the difference? A bribe is money paid to a politician for favors that benefit the payor. A campaign finance donation, on the other hand, is money paid to a politician for favors that benefit the payor. If you fail to see the difference between a bribe and a campaign finance donation, join the club. The legalization of bribery was made possible through the efforts of a right-leaning Supreme Court with its Citizens United decision.
The reference here is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, which is a landmark U.S. constitutional law, campaign finance, and corporate law case dealing with regulation of political campaign spending by organizations. Citizens United’s David Bossie has been its president since 2000. In 2016, he took a leave of absence to be deputy campaign manager of Donald Trump's campaign for President of the United States.
Things like election fraud, gerrymandering of voting districts, restrictive voter ID laws, voter suppression, and deceptive campaign ads are all business as usual for modern campaigns and are brazen attempts to override the will of the people with the will of the wealthy. A recent case in North Carolina involves Bladen County where mail-in ballots were collected by GOP employees and altered to assure a win for their candidate. When we hear of such shenanigans, we barely raise an eyebrow. We have come to accept the new morality.
Our business leaders seem content to bend or break the law as long as it benefits their shareholders. To quote Harry Logan from the movie, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, “Rules? In a knife fight? No rules.” If you remember the movie, Butch then throws dirt in Harry’s eyes and kicks him in the groin. It seems that businessmen and politicians have adopted the knife fight mentality and play by the adage, No Rules.
“Getting into politics,” is no longer about a quest for the common good with lofty goals, it is today more about personal finance. When analyzed with the benefit of history, I think we will find that our current president will have advanced his financial position beyond our wildest suspicions. If he hasn’t, he isn’t the “deal maker” extraordinaire he told us he was. His use of his presidential office for financial gain is perhaps the most egregious example of political greed we have seen in recent memory.
Worse than the sins of Trump are the sins of the 40% of Americans who blindly support the president even when confronted, on a daily basis, with the man’s nefarious deeds. Trump’s moral turpitude, even when it is found to be depraved, is acceptable behavior as long as he supports my narrow position on [insert your cause here].
The new moral code in America is one of limited accountability and a "what's in it for me" attitude. JFK's admonition to "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" is but an echo from a forgotten time.
No comments:
Post a Comment