[Industrialblog,
November 8, 2006]
Meanwhile, on the cultural war front
One thing to keep in mind about the elections is that the relevant issue to most people is not that the Dems win or the Repubs win.
What's fueling the political conflict is an underlying culture war. And at heart, this cultural issue comes down to one single area of disagreement, and it permeates almost everything else. That issue is sex.
Judicial activism? First Amendment and censorship? Freedom of religion and theocracy? It's really all about sex.
We Americans are largely agreed on a lot of issues, and our disagreements are usually about whether we should do a little more of something, or a little less of something. Agricultural subsidies? Mebbe a little more, mebbe a little less. National defense contracts? Mebbe a little more, mebbe a little less. Fuel standards? Mebbe more, mebbe less. Or we disagree on tactics ... see the War on Terror, subset, Iraq.
But when it comes to sex, we in the U.S., are deeply divided about this question: Is it anyone's business but your own who you have sex with?
We are so deeply divided on this question that, IMHO, we are simply members of different cultures — might as well be completely different nations. And that's why it makes the conflict so intractable, so difficult and so long-lasting.
Why is the Catholic Church and evangelicals attacked by elites? Ain't for running soup kitchens ... it's because of its teaching on sex deeply offends the elites.
Why was Rick Santorum despised? Because of his opinions on sexual morality. He's called a "woman-hater" and a "homophobe" because he sought to uphold traditional sexual morality.
And the answer to this question is so emotion-laden that, IMHO, it fuels most of the current anger in the political climate.
How you answer that question, I think, determines which cultural camp you're in.
One "culture" answers the question reflexively: "Of course it's none of anyone's business who I have sex with, and that means when, how, with whom, with the usual caveats. I am the arbiter of my own sexual morality, and no one else has any say, as long as I don't break the law. We live in an era of antibiotics and birth control, both of which made most of traditional sexual morality obsolete. I can enjoy sex without consequences and by the way, shut the fuck up. The only limitations are age and consent."
Others respond: "Mebbe you can have sex with no larger consequences, at least for a while, but that sucks as social policy. Excuse the pun, but fuck yeah it matters who you have sex with. Those 'usual' caveats are not little ... they quickly grow into big issues and they determine, largely, how society will come to be organized, for good or ill, and how happy the members of that society will be. And the arguments you use to destroy traditional taboos such as pornography, promiscuity and homosexuality will come back to haunt you when you try to defend against polygamy and sex with children."
And as you can tell, these points of view cannot be easily reconciled. One side is furious with the other -- and it's an anger rooted in fear, fear that the other side will attempt to regulate their sexual behavior. The other side, meanwhile, is concerned about the consequences of unregulated sexual and sex-related (such as abortion and pornography) behavior, particularly as promoted by the media. Hence, the cultural war.
What's fueling the political conflict is an underlying culture war. And at heart, this cultural issue comes down to one single area of disagreement, and it permeates almost everything else. That issue is sex.
Judicial activism? First Amendment and censorship? Freedom of religion and theocracy? It's really all about sex.
We Americans are largely agreed on a lot of issues, and our disagreements are usually about whether we should do a little more of something, or a little less of something. Agricultural subsidies? Mebbe a little more, mebbe a little less. National defense contracts? Mebbe a little more, mebbe a little less. Fuel standards? Mebbe more, mebbe less. Or we disagree on tactics ... see the War on Terror, subset, Iraq.
But when it comes to sex, we in the U.S., are deeply divided about this question: Is it anyone's business but your own who you have sex with?
We are so deeply divided on this question that, IMHO, we are simply members of different cultures — might as well be completely different nations. And that's why it makes the conflict so intractable, so difficult and so long-lasting.
Why is the Catholic Church and evangelicals attacked by elites? Ain't for running soup kitchens ... it's because of its teaching on sex deeply offends the elites.
Why was Rick Santorum despised? Because of his opinions on sexual morality. He's called a "woman-hater" and a "homophobe" because he sought to uphold traditional sexual morality.
And the answer to this question is so emotion-laden that, IMHO, it fuels most of the current anger in the political climate.
How you answer that question, I think, determines which cultural camp you're in.
One "culture" answers the question reflexively: "Of course it's none of anyone's business who I have sex with, and that means when, how, with whom, with the usual caveats. I am the arbiter of my own sexual morality, and no one else has any say, as long as I don't break the law. We live in an era of antibiotics and birth control, both of which made most of traditional sexual morality obsolete. I can enjoy sex without consequences and by the way, shut the fuck up. The only limitations are age and consent."
Others respond: "Mebbe you can have sex with no larger consequences, at least for a while, but that sucks as social policy. Excuse the pun, but fuck yeah it matters who you have sex with. Those 'usual' caveats are not little ... they quickly grow into big issues and they determine, largely, how society will come to be organized, for good or ill, and how happy the members of that society will be. And the arguments you use to destroy traditional taboos such as pornography, promiscuity and homosexuality will come back to haunt you when you try to defend against polygamy and sex with children."
And as you can tell, these points of view cannot be easily reconciled. One side is furious with the other -- and it's an anger rooted in fear, fear that the other side will attempt to regulate their sexual behavior. The other side, meanwhile, is concerned about the consequences of unregulated sexual and sex-related (such as abortion and pornography) behavior, particularly as promoted by the media. Hence, the cultural war.
This culture war is, roughly, theistic sexual morality versus atheistic sexual morality. Do you really ever expect the two to be yoked together?
(And if anyone doubts this dichotomy, explain why the one camp is always described as fundamentalist Christians, and the victory of that camp described as the institution of theocracy.)
One thing I can say is: I don't know if you're being serious here. Not at all. So if you're serious, and I respond like you're joking. But if you're joking, and I respond like you're serious, that's bad too.
If you're serious, then your argument is a gross oversimplification and perhaps an intentional distortion of a complex issue. It is to say (based on several fairly cursory readings) that, say, the mismanagement of war in Iraq did not matter as much to people when the went to the polling booths as did the issue is sex. Which is dismissive and disrespectful not only of the voters, but for the people who are putting their lives on the line not to defend our freedom (as the local TV stations like to say each time a new group ships off), not to liberate an oppressed people or bring democracy to the Middle East, but who are there because they took a vow to serve their country and go and fight and die if they were told to, and they have made a decision to stick with that vow.
Power and control are not about sex. Power and control are substitutes for sex. Having a hierarchy of celibates (or, at least, people who are supposed to be celibate) dictating sexual mores to the followers of their religion is a perversion of sex wrapped up with power and control.
Finally in this non-comment, I need to point out the two local politicians who have fallen most seriously: Santorum and Sherwood. Santorum's positions on sex I am sure you are familiar with. Sherwood, on the other hand, is most famous for having attempted to strangle the mistress with whom he had had a several-year affair when he was supposed to just be giving her an erotic massage. The point is: both of these guys have been voted out of office, the prude and the perv. Can your theory account for both simultaneously?
But, like I said, I'm tired, and I have to get going.
I don't know anything about the second case, but in general non-consensual attempted murder isn't approved of by anyone at all. Trying to draw a conclusion from someone who indulged in it being voted out of office is therefore problematic at best.
Of course Republican Operative/Anarchist Grover Norquist says it wasn't the affair or the attempted murder that was the problem, it was the mistress having a big mouth:
So I guess Norquist's new motto for Republicans is "Take it, bitch!"
But then again, when Kerry ran for president, he and his sidekick kept making references to Dick Cheney's GAY DAUGHTER.
Anyhow, I still don't see what needs explaining. To have a phenomenon which needs explaining, you'd need a north-eastern US (preferably Massachusetts) or southern Californian democrat whose base didn't turn out because of some peccadillo like cheating on his wife.
Northeastern Pennsylvania
voted against
Rick Santorum
("the prude")
AND
voted against
Don Sherwood
("the perv").
An everything-is-about-sex theory only works if you accept that Northeastern Pennsylvania espouses a "middle way" which rejects the attitudes of both Santorum and Sherwood. Or maybe, just maybe, crazy as it sounds, we were tired of Republican corruption, incompetence, and mismanagement, and decided it was time to dump these two, regardless of their sexual peculiarities.
And Norquist is saying "Don't throttle mistresses" is a lesson, not a motto. He earlier said that the problem was that the mistress "whined" about being throttled. So the problem, as Norquist defines it, isn't that Sherwood had a mistress, or that he throttled her, but that the mistress that he throttled whined about it. As a rule, politicians (and people in general) 1)should not take mistresses, and 2)should not throttle anyone.