BCT Editorial – 2/24/05

This page was last updated on February 26, 2005.

The color purple; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 24, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Be careful of the moral values for which you wish, for they might not be the ones you expect.

“A revealing poll by the Scripps-Howard News Service and Ohio University of 1,001 adult Americans found that the moral values being bandied about in the media, especially the 24-7 shoutfests on cable television and talk radio, aren’t necessarily the ones that concern most Americans.”

[RWC] Notice the editorial failed to mention the “shoutfests” on the Times opinion pages.

“For instance, take homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Scripps-Howard reports the survey found that 31 percent of those surveyed said that homosexuality is a very important moral issue while 38 percent cited same-sex marriage.”

[RWC] Those seem like fairly large numbers, certainly larger than I expected. Despite that, the editorial wants us to believe they are small.

“The survey asked people to rate 13 issues, ranging from divorce to the nation’s military operations in Iraq, as ‘a very important, somewhat important or not important moral issue.’

“The news service reported ‘issues that seemed to threaten harm or cause suffering easily surpassed all other concerns mentioned in the poll, even those issues commonly cited as critical problems during last year’s elections. For example, 89 percent said child abuse is a very important moral issue, as did 77 percent on spousal abuse and 71 on the general topic of hunger.’

“If issues such as child abuse and hunger concern so many Americans, why are we hearing so much about same-sex marriage and homosexuality? It’s because the political class is divorced from the real America. Their ideological agendas aren’t those of most Americans. These politicians might be red and blue, but most Americans are the color purple.”

[RWC] Regarding the first sentence, could it have something to do with the fact that we already have many private and public programs in place to deal with “child abuse and hunger” and we’re all in agreement that “child abuse and hunger” are “bad?”

Who is the “political class?” Regardless of their position, most politicians wanted to stay way from the homosexual “marriage” subject. The subject was thrust upon them because homosexual activists want to redefine marriage to include the joining of homosexuals.

“Jonathon Rauch noted this in a recent article in The Atlantic Monthly. ‘American politics is polarized, but the American public is not. In fact, what may be the most striking feature of the contemporary American landscape - a surprise, given today’s bitterly adversarial politics - is not the culture war but the culture peace,’ he wrote.

“Among other sources, Rauch cited Alan Wolfe’s 1998 book ‘One Nation, After All’ in which Wolfe found ‘intellectuals may line up on the extremes, but ordinary people mix and match values from competing menus.’ Wolfe found his subjects to be ‘above all moderate,’ ‘reluctant to pass judgment’ and ‘tolerant to a fault,’ Rauch reports.”

[RWC] Watch out for terms like “moderate” and “tolerant.” Far too often, “moderate” means “liberal” and “tolerance” means “advocacy.” Here’s an example of the difference between tolerance and advocacy. I “tolerate” socialist beliefs but I don’t “advocate” them. Currently, homosexual activists tend to conflate these terms as standard operating procedure. For example, if you don’t advocate homosexual “marriage,” you are intolerant of homosexuals.

“The main reasons for the political/cultural divide are the rise of primary elections and sophisticated gerrymandering of legislative and congressional districts that have allowed ideologues to dominate the process, Rauch contends.”

[RWC] I disagree. I believe “the political/cultural divide” has always existed. What has changed is that the conservative side of the spectrum is finally getting “air time.”

“A perfect example of that occurred in Pennsylvania’s Republican U.S. Senate primary last year. Moderate incumbent Arlen Specter barely survived a challenge from a far more conservative opponent but went on to crush his Democratic opponent in the fall.”

[RWC] Liberals, as this editorial’s author, like to portray Arlen Specter as a “moderate.” Specter is a RINO.

Also, the editorial writer and I have different views of “crush.” Specter won with only 53% of the vote. If only about 5% of voters changed their vote, Joe Hoeffel would have won. That’s hardly a “crushing” win.

Finally, the results cited for Specter were statewide. Hoeffel won in Beaver County, 46% to 45%, and in Allegheny County. I wonder why the editorial omitted that fact.

“As hard as it will be, moderates must bring American politics more in line with American culture. It could happen. Columnist Matthew Miller believes ‘neither major party has a political strategy ... that includes solving our biggest domestic problems. ... If both sides continue to peddle charades in the next few years while real problems fester, I believe it will create enough energy and frustration among leaders and citizens that a new ‘radically centrist’ third-party movement will be born.’”

[RWC] “Neither major party has a political strategy ... that includes solving our biggest domestic problems?” All I can say is Mr. Miller hasn’t been paying attention.

“If it does, the pundits will have to add a third color to the mix - purple. We can hardly wait.”

[RWC] Note how the editorial writers appear to exclude themselves from the “pundit” label.