This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

Moral Values and the Battle Over Who are the Bigger Hypocrites

I've calmed down a bit from Saturday's "proud red stater" rant, but not much. So if some irony, sarcasm and snippiness come through, well, you've been warned. Stop now or you may get offended by reading further.

First reactions to the elections and the ascendancy of "moral values" into this year's campaign had mainly to do with pegging red staters with ignorance and certain phobias, homophobia playing the loudest tune, but xenophobia and misogyny were close behind. As the internet continues to get "hetted up" over the election, it seems now reactions are turning to accusations that red staters are just a bunch of hate-filled hypocrites. They cry "moral values" and "traditional marriage" but have just as high divorce rates as blue staters (or, heck, some blue states have lower divorce rates!). And for all their advocacy of the unborn, them red staters sure do like to drop bombs on people, kill criminals, and otherwise ignore the poor.

Give me a break.

I'll get to the hypocrisy equalizer in a moment. But let's take a look at these blue staters. These folks crying red state hypocrisy are the same folks who blather on and on about women's reproductive rights, but last time I checked, every woman still had a right to reproduce or not, as she sees fit. In fact, as one commentator noted, anyone who tries to force a woman to reproduce will get his butt landed in jail darn quick. And God forbid any parent try to keep their underage daughter from reproducing--there are a ton of government subsidized agencies that will help her accomplish her reproductive activities outside of parental consent. Oops. Did I say reproductive activies? Well, yes, I did. But that's the hypocrisy: blue staters don't want to women to have the right to reproduce. Nope. They want women to have the right to engage in any and all sexual activities they desire--without the consequences. Reproductive rights? Hardly. The right to kill off any consequences of consensual activity, that's what they want.

And blue staters are so tagged with care for and outreach to the poor. But as we all know one of the primary ways for the poor to escape the rigid cycle of poverty is to get a good education. And here's where blue staters balk: don't you dare take kids out of worthless, underperforming, overfunded inner city schools. Heavens, what would happen to all the overpaid administrators of those schools? Er, I mean, what would happen to all the teachers we don't really care about because we won't eliminate duplicate administration and non-school union jobs to free up funds to give them a raise? Er, I mean, what would happen to all those students? What would happen, you ask? They would go to schools that do perform and get an education that will at least give them the chance to break the cycle of poverty in their own lives.

These blue staters are starting to get rid of that "deer-in-the-headlights" look they took on when "moral values" burst on the election scene. Why, they crow, we have values, too. We value diversity, plurality, freedom, and so on. Indeed, those blue staters do. They value all opinions and religious beliefs--except Christian ones. Schools have mandated the saying of Muslim prayers and reading of Islamic literature, and the wearing of Muslim dress in classes devoted to studying other groups. Try to do that with Christianity . . . Uh, well, never mind. Yes, blue staters value morals and values, just not those exclusivist, rigid and homophobic Christian ones. I mean, Christians actually believe their faith should have a role in the public square? Can you believe that? What rubes. Maybe all those blue staters have lower divorce rates because fewer of their people would dare to submit to as outdated and backward a ritual as a "Christian wedding ceremony" so they don't get married, and therefore don't get divorced. After all, who needs a piece of paper and a minister to authenticate a couple's love, right? More to the point, if traditional marriage is such a means of oppression to women and is nullified by rampant divorce, why do blue staters want it for gays and lesbians?

Yes, yes, see--two can play the hypocrisy game. And that's my point: blue staters and red staters have equal numbers of hypocrites, they're just hypocritical about different things. No, the proof is in the pudding. What actually are the moral values red staters and blue staters hold? And do those beliefs hold up to reasonable inquiry? And when those beliefs do get lived consistently--and red staters and blue staters do exist who live their respective moral values consistently--what are the consequences and results? Those are the questions that need to be asked.