Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World ReviewOct. 4, 2000 /5 Tishrei 5761

Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Debbie Schlussel
Sam Schulman
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

The immoral majority --
A CURIOUS NEW national poll shows a slight majority of the public favors Democrats on the issue of moral leadership. The survey -- conducted by Harvard University, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the Washington Post -- finds that while 68 percent of voters are dissatisfied with the moral state of the nation, that has not translated into an advantage for Gov. George W. Bush or the Republican Party.

While Bush enjoys the support of most voters who say that the loss of moral values is their primary concern, Vice President Al Gore offsets Bush's advantage among a larger number of voters who have other priorities. The survey also discovered that Gore's addition of Sen. Joseph Lieberman to the ticket has given the two men a seven-point boost in their standing with voters.

How can this be, given the record of the Clinton-Gore administration, including the impeachment of President Clinton, his numerous personal and professional failings and the questionable behavior and statements of Gore? How can this be, when Lieberman, though an "observant Jew,'' claims the rabbis teach him it is individual conscience, not the Torah, that is a Jew's ultimate guide? If true, every act might arguably be at least subjectively moral, because everyone becomes his or her own god. Talk about "no controlling legal authority'' So, a woman named "Amy,'' who was part of a study on the just-approved abortion drug RU-486, must be correct when she tells a Washington Post reporter about her abortion: "It felt morally right.'' Who can argue if there is no objective moral standard by which to judge?

The first definition of "moral'' is this: "Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.'' But what if a majority no longer accepts a common definition of right and wrong, or suppose the definition changes to suit the culture or the mood of the country at any given moment? Appeals to "morality'' then fall flat as we get the answerable, but to some embarrassing, question: "Whose morality?''

C.S. Lewis dealt with this in his classic "Mere Christianity.'' Lewis observed that everyone seems to have some standard for morality, such as the presumption that an able-bodied person would give up his seat to a disabled or elderly person or the expectation that a promise will be fulfilled. This used to be called the Law of Nature, he writes, before it came to signify gravitation, heredity or the properties of chemistry.

Lewis said the Law of Nature cannot be ignored because of immediate consequences (such as falling from a building or a chemical explosion). But the higher laws governing human nature can willfully be ignored. They, too, cause consequences, though they are often deferred. A number of recent books on divorce prove what common sense tells us -- that marital breakup has severe implications for children into their adult years. It's not that we can't know right from wrong. There are ample sources of information for people who would learn. It is that we have deliberately chosen to ignore the sources. We prefer immediate gratification to eternal rewards. We are, observed the hymn writer, "rich in things, but poor in soul.'' Such moral poverty inevitably is reflected in our politics.

An Oregon woman who plans to vote for Gore told pollsters, "I see decay in our society. As a single individual, you really don't know what to do -- what can one person do? That's why we turn to government, and that's why we want someone who shares our values.''

Her statement is meaningless. If there are no universally held "values,'' how can government reflect them? Besides, government is the last place we should look for moral renewal. Government reflects the soul of its people. If individuals cannot properly define morality, politicians will be of little help. When most people don't know what they believe or why, politicians engage in spiritual shoplifting, claiming to be able to produce the desired results without requiring anyone to pay a price. Those reverends of left and right who make their bed with politicians are unable to tell them where to turn, because such ministers have mortgaged their own souls in exchange for the illusion of political influence.

The Oregon woman who thinks Gore will improve the moral climate will be disappointed, as will those who have faith that Bush can reverse the slide. The problem lies deeper than politics can reach. An increasingly immoral majority refuses to search for the solution, which is higher than the kingdoms of this world.

Cal Thomas Archives



© 2000, LA TimesSyndicate