Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Diana West :: Townhall.com Columnist
The real taboo
by Diana West
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


What may be most revolting about ex-Rep. Mark Foley is what shows through his debasing IM sex talk with teenage boys: the congressman's absolute lack of what was once known as restraint, inhibition, a sense of social taboo. In this same absence of restraint is the absence of a moral compass guided by maturity. On a different level (one removed from sexual malfeasance), there's something somewhat unseemly about the media's unblushing -- dare I say shameless? -- reportage. They may claim a fig leaf by acting in the "public interest," but that doesn't completely cover up a practically carnal zeal for smutty details. And let's not even think about the IM-leaker's as-yet secret ecstasy. Restraint, inhibition and social taboo have become dirty words in the decades since the 1960s, but the culture that lets it all hang out, it seems, doesn't have much inside.

I say this as the rapid-response conventional wisdom insists the Foley fiasco will discourage GOP voter turnout in November, particularly among all-important, so-called "values voters," thereby vaulting Democratic majorities into Congress. If so, this is a 21st-century twist on Bread and Circuses any Roman emperor would applaud. In the ancient tradition of distracting Ye Olde Populi from events of national import, sex-scandal-focused GOP voters are expected to stay home because of Mark Foley's appalling lack of traditional values, helping to elect Democrats who are more likely to eschew such values in the first place. And the war goes on -- or not, with Democrats in charge.

All of which is to say that Foley's transgressions (first, overlooked by the House GOP leadership, and later, set to explode at election-time by persons unknown) are unlikely to resonate culturally even as they have become political dynamite. That's partly because the GOP in smithereens is never a victory for "values." It's also because Foley is less a creation of his "traditional values" GOP than he is a creature (cretin) of his time -- our sex-drenched time. It's also because society's ire is directed not at his (homo)sexuality, but at his exploitation of youth and power. Such context doesn't excuse Foley's monstrous behavior, but it helps explain why his fall, why the Republicans' possible fall, won't usher in an era of cultural restoration.

Meanwhile, cultural restoration isn't what this election is about. It can't be.

Culture wars, such as they are, necessarily become secondary political issues in times of war. And these are certainly times of war, even if leaders on both sides prefer to mask them in less momentous terms, as when they exhort us not to triumph over Islamic jihadism, but rather to fight against "terror," or, lately, "extremism."

Come to think of it, maybe such rigid adherence to euphemism is a bona fide show of restraint. But in this case, "restraint" is not mature. Restraining the libido (which Foley did not amid a culture that does not) comes down to a matter of mind (or morality) over matter -- a display of forbearance which is by definition mature. Intellectual restraint -- self-censorship -- in matters of war and peace belies a lack of will or confidence that defines the unformed uncertainty of immature man.

Then again, maybe war-talk "inhibitions" simply show how "repressed" we are as when we observe the "social taboo" of denying the Islamic nature of our foe.

I'm playing around with these 1960s clichs to try to illustrate a key aspect of our social condition: Sexually untrammeled, we have become intellectually moribund. We continue, tiresomely, to highlight sexuality in the culture, even as we continue, perilously, to stifle debate that touches on non-Western topics such as Islam. Are the two related? You bet, because they both carry the stamp of approval from the school of political correctness that was established amid the sexual revolution and the rise of multiculturalism. What we might regard as sexual liberationism and multiculturally-rigged reason are on track to roll back the Enlightenment that produced Western civilization as we know it today.

This symbiosis may in the end help explain why, in the midst of a global war to determine the fate of Western civilization (as in whether Western civilization will continue to have a fate), American voters and politicians alike appear poised to turn all-important midterm elections into a meaningless referendum on a sexual predator already ostracized, while still failing to debate, examine, or even recognize urgent facts before us.

For a culture with few taboos, we sure have a lot of hang-ups.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Diana West is a contributing columnist for Townhall.com and author of the new book, The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Diana West's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
to Jander, once again
I forgot one thing: "And you wonder why no one on this
website agrees with you"

I have no wonder about it at all. This website is a
lightning rod for a certain type of person. Let's call
that person "politico - mean." I know a lot of conservatives who are well reasoned people. GentleFolk, if you will. You don't find them very often here. And that is because, with some major exceptions such as Colson and Wills, the columnists are mean themselves or purposefully go after the mean side of the crowd.

Without going into all the examples of their meanness,
let's just say that "mean" works in the short term. It pulls in people who have a grudge against something (and
we all have those grudges) works those grudges up into
anger and even hate. And voila. You have won the election, or whatever it is you are trying to win.

However, it doesn't last forever and people have very
long memories. Hitler won in the short term. Blame
the Jews for our monetary and social woes. Hitler lost
eventually and Germany is still paying for his sins
in both lack of respect and lack of tourism $. Before
the war, it was THE place to be for any number of reasons. Now it is the place to go if you have been
everywhere else.

During the first half of last century - and longer -
the South was mean against the blacks. I was just a
squirt back in the 50's during the Civil Rights movement
but the message remains and the images still haunt.
And still today, when I think of people from Arkansas,
Alabama, and Mississippi, I think of mean and dumb.
I still see in my mind that big brute of a sheriff with
the thick neck. I will never get over that image.

Go through the same scenario with Joe McCarthy. He had
everyone's attention for awhile. But when it was over,
it was seriously over. And his reputation has followed
him well beyond the grave.

Coulter and Malkin may help you win an election or two
yet. Who knows. But 50 years from now no one will want
their reputation. Working people up into a feverish
pitch only works for awhile - just like adrenalin.
Eventually it fades and then you can deal with the
mess.

To Jander and Lydia
Just one small comment to Lydia. Do I think that Hitler
was a rugged individualist? I wouldn't have the foggiest
idea. I could ask what that has got to do with anything
I wrote. My point was that Mr. R.I. wants rugged individualism for himself but apparently no one else. I tend to think of rugged individualists as people stuck on (make that "obsessed with") themselves, the rest of society be damned. That is not my philosophy nor is it one I admire.

To Jander: Been reading any Ann Coulter lately? Do you
have naughty little dreams about her because of her long
blonde hair or because of her charm and ability to bring
people together. Why don't you come up with an idea of
your own.

I do not want to take on your response directly because
the whole thing, makes me want to cry. Politics has never been a gentle game, but it has become frightening lately and it is because of the Coulters, Hannitys, and Limbaughs. Their message is one of come-uppance and hate-mongering. Is there anybody left in this US who wants to find common ground? Is there anybody who wants to work, with respect for each other.

"Wealth Distribution" Say what! We could use it, yes. No one in the industrialized world has a greater disparity between the wealthy and non-wealthy than in our country. However, some version of national medicine does not distribute wealth, it distributes services to everyone. Shame on us for ever dreaming up such a wicked idea. Shame on those over 65 other rotter countries who already have it. The government does not pay for this service. Tax payers do. I never heard anyone claim that it is free. I have only heard right-wingers claim that we liberals think it is free. And by the way, there are
a multitude of countries whose health care is better than
ours. What do they know that we don't? Maybe that
people who work for the common good can accomplish more
than those who think only of themselves.

And maybe you would like to find me some official
quote that says more people than ever have health insurance these days. Quite the opposite it is true.
Every year that percentage of those adequately
insured goes down, with the exception of kids PERHAPS.
I do believe some states are coming up with plans to
make sure that all kids can get insurance if their
parents follow through. Unfortunately, it has not been
as widely advertised as it should be, at least in my
State. I would also like to state that except for the
very routine stuff, kids are not typically the big users
of health care. Insuring them is not the costly part of
insurance.

"Hillary, Obama, McCain, and Guilliano" Moonbats!
Call them what you want. Any one of them is more
respected than Bush, is more intelligent than Bush, and
is less devisive than Bush. They are centrists. They
are people who see themselves as servants of the people,
not the servant of an ideology.

I am not quite as ignorant about the Christian right
as you may think. I grew up in a Christian right
household, and my extensive extended family is about
90% fundamentalist Christian. I went to a college that
is parochial college of the same ilk. I continue to read the literature put out by the church and the college. I know the issues. I know what ultimately gets their vote. They are not voting against national health care (most are for it acutally), they are not voting the gun issue, or the death penalty, they are certainly not voting against caring for the poor. It is abortion and gay
marriage. These are issues that the wealthy (let me
keep every penny I make in my own back pocket) have
very little truck with. They may be for or against, but
it is not what they vote over. For them it is taxes,
taxes, taxes, and other business-related issues.

"Bush lied, people died" Is there a question about
that? What is it?

"Partial-birth abortions" This is where I know you have
been reading Coulter. The majority of the citizens in
the U.S. do not want the government to interfere with
the choice of women to have an abortion if they want.
And Coulter knows this. The percentage has remained
the same for years and years and it has always been on
the side of free choice. However, there is some
devisiveness about partial-birth abortions, so Coulter
and followers use this particular issue about abortion
to start calling liberals names, including godless.
There are probably as many liberals who are against
partial-birth abortions as on the other side. While I
am not claiming that it should be a non-issue, I would
say that it is getting far more press from the right-
wing ranters than it deserves. Of the over 100,000
abortions per year, only around 500 are of the "fork
in the head" type. Listening to Coulter would make one
think it is an epidemic.

Did it ever occur to you that a pregant 12 year old in
all likelihood comes from an extremely disfunctional
family. And I emphasize "extemely." Assuming that your
social circle is among sane people, how many do you
know with 12, 13, 14 year old pregnant girls? Why
should a girl have to ask permission from her parents from this type of family to get an abortion, especially
if daddy may be the father.

Last night I was at a Bible Study Meeting - yes, I am a
Christian, yes I go to church, yes I study the Bible -
and someone brought up a concept that I agree with.
Idealogues, from either side of the bench, are like
people who have difficult marriages. Either they end up
divorced, or they have a mate who hangs on, no matter
what. There is no give and take as far as they are
concerned. The centrists are the ones who are more
likely to have a happier marriage, metaphorically
speaking, because they believe in the give and take.
Life does not begin and end around themselves alone.
There are others whose wishes need to be met also.

That is why I think we desparately need in this country
someone like Hilary, McCain, Obama or that guy with
the Italian name that I have as yet not learned to
spell. And while I was speaking metaphorically, isn't it ironic that Coulter and Hannity and
Limbaugh have the marital life, or lack of one, that
they do have. While Obama and even Hillary have
successful ones, even though at least Hillary had to do
a lot of forgiving. Her smile appears to be a whole
lot more genuine that Laura's also. But I suppose that
is not fair. It is hard to have a good belly laugh when
the whole world, excepting Rumsfeld and Cheney, thinks your husband is a jerk.

You may respond to this if you would like. But you
will be talking to the wind. This website gives me
a huge headache. I need a major break.













Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.