Cutting through the bullshit.

Tuesday, 5 June 2007

Moral decline

Gallup’s Joseph Carroll reported today that the annual Values and Beliefs poll found that 44% of the 1003 American adults surveyed 10-13 May rated ‘the overall state of moral values in this country today’ as poor, the highest proportion since 2002, the earliest poll reported. Eighty-two percent thought ‘the state of moral values in the country as a whole’ was getting worse. Big majorities of every population tabulated – regardless of age, sex, race, region, political affiliation, religion, church attendance, income, or education – agreed. The lowest proportion saying morals were in decline were ‘Liberal Democrats’ with 69%.

Nowhere in his article does Carroll mention how Gallup defines ‘moral values’, much less how they think their respondents do, but presumably it has something to do with the moral cowardice of a population that overwhelmingly rejects the neocons’ aggressive imperialism and won’t stand up against it. Or their failure to hold corporations accountable, or to redress the inequality they perceive penetrating their society.

No, that’s not what they meant. They didn’t mean the kind of moral decline that results in more executions. They meant polygyny (but not polyandry) and married people having affairs, and of course ‘homosexuality’.

To shed some light on the issue, the Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby watched the Democratic debate last night. Here’s some of what he had to say about the experience.

But in truth, last night's debate wasn't funny. It was worrisome. Worrisome that in 120 minutes of talk, not one of the Democratic candidates had anything substantive to say about the global jihad. Worrisome that all but one of the Democrats oppose legislation to declare English the official language of the United States. Worrisome that on the issue they spent the most time discussing -- the war in Iraq -- not one spoke seriously or responsibly about the consequences of an American withdrawal.

You’d think he was worried, and quite understandably. Imagine none of those prospective Democratic candidates having anything to say about Bush’s global crusade for Halliburton profits. ‘Not one’ taking a responsible position on the very thing that Iraqis univocally attest they most want. Of course, that’s not really what he meant. He meant he wants all Americans to really believe that billions of Muslims, some of whom are resisting the crusade, are motivated by nothing other than hatred of the moral values all American hold dear – Halliburton’s profits. He wants Democratic candidates to worry about the impact on American ‘prestige’ and ‘full spectrum dominance’ if forced to leave Iraq in disgrace. I gather he’s planning to vote for some Republican candidate, as if that would make any difference. He knows as well as anybody else that Hillary is as bent on world domination as Dubya, and Bill, and HW, and Ron, and Jimmy, and Gerry, and Dick, and Lyndon, and Jack, and Ike…

No comments:

Post a Comment