An Abject Lesson

The upcoming election for the Senate pitting Republican Roy Moore against Democrat Doug Jones offers a sad and disturbing lesson on much that is wrong with politics today. Witnessing the shocking indifference of voters and politicians alike to the credible allegations that Roy Moore is a child molester and listening to the bizarre rationalizations given for supporting him over his opponent, Doug Jones, put in stark terms the ways in which fanatic forms of fundamentalism, political expedience in the service of power and greed, and the ongoing oppression of women continue to plague our country.

Exhibit One: A So-Called Thought Piece

A clear illustration of the argument I intend to make was an article in The Federalist from November 30th written by Tully Borland entitled, “Why Alabamians Should Vote for Roy Moore.” The author is an associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University. He also proudly proclaims that he is a “superhero against the dark forces of political correctness” (so be forewarned). Regrettably, despite being an associate professor of philosophy, the article shows an appalling lack clear thought and cogent reasoning. It abounds in troubling contradictions and innuendos that appeal more to emotion than to logic. Nonetheless, it has value in providing considerable insight into everything that is wrong about supporting Roy Moore. It illustrates this by excusing his immoral conduct using sophistry and a twisted sort of religious rationalization.

As the author asserts, he makes the bold claim that even if Roy Moore is guilty of what he has been accused of, Alabamians should still vote for him. He even goes so far as to say:

But let’s suppose the accusations are mostly true. Then from a conservative moral perspective, Moore is guilty of lying, trying to have pre-marital sexual relations with girls half his age, and pressuring them to do so without first determining that they reciprocate. There is no sugar-coating what he did. Moore was a dirt bag and is currently lying about his actions rather than confessing the truth and asking for forgiveness.

So how does Borland then turn a completely blind eye to what it means if these accusations are true? Well, of course, the first and old reliable strategy is to cast doubt on the accusations and to put a positive spin on his behavior. Borland sees Moore’s “penchant for dating teenagers” as not without merit if one’s goal is to have a large family. He quotes a fellow philosopher, Keith Burgess-Jackson, who talks about how it was completely normal at one time for older men to marry women as young as 14 years old. He then goes on to say that he is sick to death of people today imposing their own moral standards on people of the past. The examples Burgess-Jackson gives of such people are Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee, George Armstrong Custer, Martin Luther King, and Roy Moore.

Let’s look at these specious arguments more closely. There is no credible evidence that Roy Moore was wooing teenagers as potential marital partners. The allegations are that he was sexually harassing them and attempting to have pre-marital sexual relations with teenagers without their consent. Further, the assertion that people are imposing moral standards on people of the past is equally specious. The moral standards in question are timeless ones that require that we treat human beings with respect and dignity. How interesting that Burgess-Jackson cites Thomas Jefferson who owned slaves and had sexual relations with Sally Hemmings; Robert E. Lee who fought to preserve slavery; and George Armstrong Custer who engaged in the genocide of Native Americans. How could we have the audacity of imposing moral sanctions against slavery and genocide? Where Martin Luther King fits into this is anyone’s guess, but Roy Moore would clearly make good company with the others.

So then we come to the question of voting for the lesser of two evils. For Borland there is little question that no matter what wrongs Roy Moore may have done, they pale in comparison to Doug Jones’ support for unrestricted abortion. This makes him either a moral monster or moral ignoramus in Borland’s eyes. How can you abide with someone who advocates for the mass murder of innocents? Besides that, as a Democrat Jones represents an existential threat to the freedoms and way of life of conservative Christians. Borland is employing a bizarre sort of moral calculus that he shares with many other conservative Christians. Jones’ position on abortion violates a moral absolute that condemns him as evil despite any righteous actions he has performed or beliefs he holds. Further it is far worse that any wrongs committed by Moore.

Yet this very position contradicts another part of Borland’s argument in which he observes that there are no perfect political candidates because all have sinned. He tells us that even if Moore were to be elected, he would be joining the ranks of a number of “liars and fornicators”. How strange then that the moral absolutes that Borland imposes on Doug Jones can be so facilely suspended in judging Roy Moore. Not really because you see it all comes down to political expedience. For Borland, politics is never pure. If Doug Jones gets elected, he will do all sorts of terrible things. While if Moore is elected, he “will favor better policies affecting millions of people”.

It’s All in the Frame

The cognitive psychologist, George Lakoff, offers considerable insight into the role which framing plays in American politics. Frames are mental structures that play a significant role in how we see the world and subsequently behave. Through his research, Lakoff found that differences between those who hold conservative vs. liberal views can be explained based on two very different views of the family. For the purpose of understanding justifications for supporting Roy Moore, we need to look at the strict father model that forms the foundation for conservative politics and religion.

According to this model, the world is a dangerous place because of the rampant evil that exists. There is a constant clash between good and evil that makes competition inevitable. Some will emerge as winners and others as losers. Children are born bad because they are naturally inclined to do what feels good. They must be taught that there are absolute rights and wrongs by a strong and strict paternal figure. Demanding obedience and using punishment, children are made good and learn to develop internal discipline. If they succeed in doing so, they will then pursue self-interest and become successful. If they fail, then they will fall into an immoral way of life from which they cannot be redeemed and for which they are held to be solely responsible.

The dark and cynical world-view espoused by Borland fits within the strict father frame. As a firm believer in Christian fundamentalism Borland would feel entirely comfortable with the core assumptions of the model. However, it is the extremism toward which this world typically slides that reveals the fractures that were apparent in his attempt to defend Roy Moore. As the theologian, Paul Tillich, made amply clear, this is what occurs when faith becomes fanaticism. There can be no true faith without some element of doubt. And yet it is that very doubt that fundamentalism finds terrifying. As fear grows, reason retreats. The mere hint that what one believes to be absolutely true might be under attack provokes desperate measures to restore order.

As many have observed, fundamentalists across religious traditions share the belief that they are being persecuted and discriminated against in a world that seeks to destroy their beliefs and way of life. For those who give Roy Moore their unthinking and unswerving support, that threat comes from the Democrats and everything they represent. In the face of the loss of meaning, fanaticism clings even more desperately to authority while simultaneously persecuting dissenters and lashing out violently against those with whom they disagree. In exchange for the promise of certainty, they willingly give away freedom — often to the strict father figures who offer protection and guidance.

Oh that Eve!

One other highly useful lens from which to understand this sad situation comes from the theologian, Elaine Pagels. In her book, Adam, Eve and the Serpent, Pagels explains that many different interpretations have been given to the story of Adam and Eve. These interpretations reflect changes in historical conditions, but also illustrate how religious teachings are employed to serve political purposes. The strict father model described earlier owes much to the theology of Augustine. In his later writings, Augustine used the story of Adam and Eve to argue that human beings were fundamentally corrupted by the prideful act of Adam and Eve of seeking to assert their autonomy over God. In disobeying God, human beings were damaged by the fall. This doctrine of original sin meant that human beings were enslaved to sin and naturally inclined to do evil. To keep this proclivity in check would require strict authority and a strong hand.

As Pagels argues persuasively, the adoption of Augustine’s view responded to a change occurring at that time in the history of Christianity. Prior to the 4th and 5th century, Christians were regarded as criminals defying Roman law. However, once Roman emperors became patrons of Christianity and proclaimed it the official religion of the empire, such expressions of autonomy and non-conformity were a threat to authority. Augustine’s characterization of human beings as inherently evil and in need of strict control suited these new conditions well. It justified the exercise of the Church’s authority over its members.

One other consequence of this interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve is relevant to the situation in Alabama. This is because in this altered version, it was Eve who was ultimately blamed for the fall. In the early Church, equality between men and women was accepted and women occupied positions of authority including the right to teach and baptize. For Augustine (as for other Christian thinkers), Eve’s role in the fall meant that she was the weaker sex more ruled by bodily passion than by reason. This required that women be ruled over by men and submit to their authority. This is a view with which Roy Moore has expressed his unreserved agreement — a view he shares with many evangelical Christians.

Some Concluding Thoughts

Sadly what is the matter in Alabama is not confined to that state. It is rather diagnostic of a much larger problem. And perhaps part of the reason why the problem is growing worse is the election of Donald Trump. According to the strict father model, our President should be a man of moral rectitude with a firm grip on what is right and wrong. He should be someone who himself benefited from being reared by a strict father who taught him restraint, self-discipline and the capacity to not be guided principally by the pursuit of pleasure. He should be someone who while understanding that we live in a dangerous world, works hard to protect his “children” from harm. Donald Trump fails on all these counts. I cannot help but wonder if there is a nagging sense among those who subscribe to the strict father model that all is not well. If so, is it any wonder that their anxiety is growing and we find them more desperately fleeing into an ever more self-defeating fanaticism?