Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Rod Drehere's thoughts on the Roy Moore debacle

An interesting and wide ranging take on the political nightmare in Alabama where the choice for the US Senate appears to be between a fundamentalist theocratic wingnut who is also very probably (though not definitely) a child sex predator on the one hand and a man who is comfortable killing children who are inconvenient, provided they haven't been born yet on the other.

My take: Hold your nose and vote for the theocratic wingnut molester. I think it unlikely he will spend much time in the Senate. He is too much of a political liability, and it seems that there are actually some lines that even Republicans won't let one of their own cross. I think if he is elected that the Senate will either refuse to seat him or they will expel him immediately after he takes the oath of office. Like Mitch McConnell I believe the women. But I also believe that the Washington Post had this story in the can for a while and deliberately held it back until after the loon won the GOP primary and the last date where he could be replaced on the ballot was safely past.  If Moore gets elected and subsequently barred from the Senate (or expelled) then the governor gets to name his replacement pending a new election.

All of which said, this is one of those situations where the overused expression, "the lesser of two evils" is definitely apropos.

4 comments:

James the Thickheaded said...

So you're cynical conclusion ends up recommending folks elect a pedophile? Someone else - the Senate - will do the right thing? "As if"? Ever hear of the millstone? Really?

John (Ad Orientem) said...

What is the alternative? Electing someone who supports legalized prenatal infanticide? If someone can't bring themselves to vote at all, I can respect that. But voting for the Democrat is not a morally acceptable option.

James the Thickheaded said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James the Thickheaded said...

Fine, fair to disagree. Of course, I’ve tended to hold with the Christianity that focused as much on the means as well ends, and as difficult as this is, and I may be mistaken here, I don't think this man represents a bona fide path for cementing change. To my mind, the central charge lies in changing the (now) long settled law of the land, and no matter how we feel about that law, this is what the facts are. We might do better to consider the Civil Rights movement as a better example - a long hard and bloody battle and not over to this day - but one ultimately that made some progress in changing attitudes long before it changed the law. Think how long and how carefully the search for a leader was undertaken by the NAACP and SCLA for the right person to get behind, and then take a long hard look at the man locals banned from the mall in order to protect their young women and ask whether he represents the culmination of a long search. By contrast, MLK Jr didn’t just happen and wasn't pulled out from a pack of ne'r do wells. Equally, a man of MLK's sort was necessary for the Civil Rights movement to succeed: he had courage, character and eloquence of a sort that certainly helped people forgive his flaws and listen to his message. Remember also how the Civil Rights protesters that came to my city of Washington came in their Sunday best with men in suits and ties and women in dresses, heels and white gloves... and let their opponents project ugliness upon them to a point that people could clearly see who was right and who was wrong. That may have been the last time! But do you really think the public’s mind, the Court of Public Opinion is going to be pulled into changing its collective mind by a man who misused his power and position to take advantage of young women to serve his licentious needs and then pose himself as another false champion of moral clarity, by posting the 10 commandments while explicitly breaking a few with respect to satisfying his lust? Really? If it didn't play into a sadly tired Elmer Gantry riff, it might be news. WashPost thinks so, but its not. Fact is that it is waaay old, and it's the same old same old that won't succeed in changing a single mind. Everyone wants a shortcut, and they want it for their guy, for their pet project, even for their good ideas and intentions. But repeat after me what we all know: "There are no short cuts. Ever." I don't think you mean to suggest Roy Moore will really be effective. Yes there's a first time, I guess we're now living in a country that isn't cautioned by experience. I scratch my head. Maybe I should give up because this is that sort of moment in time when the histrionics expended will far exceed the ability to accomplish anything. I think Divine Providence is intent on not allowing us to accomplish anything because He knows better the ill we would do. Do we really need another Pyrrhic victory?