Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Penske_Account
I guess it's no. I think our country is enlightened, educated and based on a communal moral foundation to be of a collective judgment, inherently, that having a man, any man, of any party, who rapes and violently beats a woman and is a serial sexual abuser of subordinate (NPI) woman in the workplace, as president or a presidential candidate is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree completely. However, Clinton was still a better choice for president than any of the other options
|
This bothers me on a fairly deep level, and I'm not quite sure I can define it well. I had the same sort of feeling watching NOW defend - hell, lionize - Clinton as the rape and harassment allegations were all coming out.
It bothers me because, on the one hand, I can understand it. NOW knew that, in Clinton, its aims and goals could be more profitably sought - it knew that the major societal changes it wanted had a higher chance of realization with Clinton as Prez than with the other choices. Because of that cost/benefit analysis, NOW had to, most likely, stifle an urge to condemn the guy doing exactly those things that it professes to hate.
But what do we, as a society, give up when we make such a choice? I understand that there's no perfect leader - but how far down are we willing to draw the line of acceptability in order to fight for our positions?
This isn't just a Clinton/Dems issue - I'm not just addressing his past crimes - but do we accept a Hitler who can deliver cheap, universal medical care? A Saddam who can stop crime? Exaggerated examples, both - but illustrations of the scary idea that we make a moral choice to allow unacceptable conduct if it profits us.
It doesn't lead to admiration of what we've become.
