Do we all have split personalities?

Religion and politics are a toxic blend.  Who holds the moral high ground?  Political policy is shaped by ideas and innovative minds.  Policy is not formed by religious proselytizing and radical invention.  Yet components of both major political parties– one party more than the other– uses religion and the ensuing fervor behind it, to craft political platforms to recapture majority status in congress.  As a result, religious ideology is becoming bastardized– losing some of its relevance as uplifting dogma, and our personal affirmation. In politics, values and morality have morphed into a hodgepodge of mind puzzles, where what you say isn’t always what you do.  I suppose it’s all a part of the political landscape.  Nevertheless, it’s a bit disheartening.

Conservatives, some of whom consider themselves pro-life, must have a hard time reconciling the fact that in protecting the life of the unborn– they are damning the life of the born– a remarkable juxtaposition of hypocritical ideology.  Is it okay to lethally strike down the doctor who performs abortions in the name of the unborn child?  What makes this belief any less rancid than the  beliefs held by radical Muslims in Al-Qaida?  Striking a strong position for life is not solely limited to that which is not alive.  It also should be for those who follow the law, whether you agree with said law or not.

Most on the right believe in a strong defense, and when times call for it, a virile show of force.  War is not pretty or right, but it is sometimes necessary.  Yet what is the defense for mass-bombing hundreds of thousands of innocent children, and mothers whose babies have yet to be born?  Where is the justification?  How are you protecting the unborn then?  It can be argued that protection of this nation is all the justification necessary. If that is the case, you are accepting ignorance, and disavowing your pro life sensibilities.  Moral genuflecting at its finest.

Liberals aren’t immune from this type of moral ambiguity either.  As champions of the poor and disenfranchised, they often fight for policies that would protect the working poor from perceived indiscriminate abuse by the counter party.  And yet, liberals often vote against tax breaks– for small businesses and companies– that may offer the poor programs necessary for their survival.  If taxes are held down, then companies are most likely to improve upon health benefits, child care benefits, and other programs, that aim to help prop up those that need the help.  It’s hard to be a moral crusader– protecting the targets from the strike– when you wield the bow and arrow yourself.

To be morally flexible to me, is to be a contrarian to your own cause.  I know at times I’m guilty of committing the crime myself.  I’ve often wondered though about the people who scream the loudest in the values arena.  Do they see their hypocrisy?  Or is their flexibility great enough to counter it?

###
Matthew Wright

Matthew Wright

Matthew Wright, originally from Connecticut, is a blogger and budding freelance writer. He is heavily interested in politics and public policy. His aim is to encourage real debate between real people. Real change begins on the grassroots level, not in the media. He attended the University of Hartford in West Hartford,Connecticut, and now makes his home in Atlanta, Georgia. He also makes a mean lasagna.