Moral Muddle
Copyright © 2000 by Dave Badtke
The Republican Presidential candidates are coming to town promoting ideas that raise difficult moral issues: intervening internationally only when its strategically necessary; banning Internet taxation; banning abortions, even in cases of rape, incest or where the life of mother is threatened; continuing with executions even when DNA evidence might prove innocence; and allowing law-abiding citizens to own unregistered guns that are not subject to product safety requirements. Certainly, many other proposals are made as well, but I’ve chosen these because of the moral confusion they create for me when debated by Governor Bush and Senator McCain.
Unfortunately, the personal conduct of President Bill Clinton, the opprobrium icon of the 1990s, has tarnished our prosperity with deceit. While Clinton did manage to preside during a period of unprecedented economic growth by, for the most part, staying out of the way, history may well remember him as that charming Arkansas gentleman impeached because he explosively mixed excessive IQ with unbridled libido.
While Bush and McCain are deriving considerable benefit from not being Clinton, their various arguments in defense of the points stated above are frequently insupportable or inconsistent. To his credit, McCain believes wholeheartedly in campaign finance reform and there is an openness and intelligence to him that leads me to hope that he will eventually fully analyze and moderate some of his views.
To be specific, let’s consider some of the points raised in the recent CNN debate moderated by Larry King.
When asked about international intervention, Bush said he would only commit troops when our strategic national interests were threatened. He stated that Europe, the Far East and Middle East and the Americas were strategically important. His exclusion of Africa means that he has learned nothing from Rwanda where Clinton’s inaction contributed to the slaughter of over 700,000 people. (Clinton’s lie about an affair with an intern pales in comparison with this event.) McCain’s expressed desire to intervene demonstrates that he understands that genocide demands action even if there is no strategic benefit.
While Bush is undecided on Internet taxation, McCain is categorically opposed: "I will veto any bill that crosses my desk that reinstitutes the [Internet] sales tax. Alan Keyes summarized the moral dilemma quite well: "…[A] lot of people out there, working in the non-virtual marketplace … are going to look at it awfully strangely [when] they’re … taxed, but somebody who goes out to the Internet … isn’t going to be taxed." McCain is a fiscal conservative who wants to pay down the debt and save Social Security and Medicare, yet he supports an inequitable sales tax system that would adversely affect our communities by reducing local revenues and forcing many local merchants out of business.
On the question of abortion, King asked the same question he asked Vice President Quayle eight years ago: "… what would [you] do in the terrible instance that [your] daughter needed an abortion?" Both Bush and McCain refused to answer the question claiming that abortion is a family decision. I’m heartened by the logic of their responses but am totally flabbergasted that they continue to take anti-abortion stands. Are they really arguing that what’s right for their families isn’t right for the rest of the nation?
When asked about the decision of the Republican Governor of Illinois to declare a moratorium on executions because of the many inmates who have been shown to be innocent, some because of DNA evidence, Bush declared: "I’ve presided over executions in my state. I’m actually convinced that everybody who was convicted was guilty of the crime." I ask you, where is the morality or intelligence in such a statement? How could a Governor be so omniscient that he could make such a statement in the face of the Illinois reversals?
And finally, there’s gun control, though this issue was not raised by King. Both Bush and McCain are opposed, even after the terrible Littleton murders, and state Republican legislatures have been quietly passing bills that make it illegal for cities to sue gun manufacturers. Currently 15 states have such laws and the NRA expects another 15 to 20 by the end of this year (NY Times, 2/17/00). Is it moral to disallow product-safety lawsuits that could save lives? If such legislation had been passed to protect the automobile, tobacco and airline industries, where would many of us be today? Probably dead.
The moral vacuum created by President Clinton needs to be filled by integrity, honesty and ideals that are clearly and consistently articulated. The current collection of moral litmus tests debated by Bush and McCain will need a lot of work before they meet this challenge.
- Dave Badtke is founder of the developing Carquinez Review literary journal. Find him on the web at www.CarquinezReview.com.
Contact him at:
Dave@CarquinezReview.com or Dave@Badtke.com