David Matthews 2 is a freelance writer in Alpharetta, Georgia. He is also the host of a weekly audio rant which you can hear at the main page.

Target: Moralism
Part 14 – Moralism Compared
– by David Matthews 2

One of the things about moralism that just infuriates someone like me is how easily it infiltrates just about any form of government and then corrupts it to its own ends. In that way, moralism is a parasite on society. It feeds off of misery and it creates strife and oppression. And it’s done with a wink and a smile as we are force-fed a line of bull that says that it’s all done in OUR best interests!

And OF COURSE the true nature of these moralists are hidden! Oh, they’ll tell you that they’re BIG supporters of freedom and the rule of law and whatever form of republic they live under. But actions always speak louder than words, and here the actions of moralists betray any assurances they may make about their support of things like freedom.

With that in mind, it’s time that we compare moralism to the elements of a free society and see exactly how it fits in… or doesn’t.

Moralism versus Democracy: Democracy is considered to be the best method of ensuring a free society, since free people would theoretically not vote for enslavement. It’s not perfect, though, and a free society often has to temper democracy with some limitations, such as those listed in the Bill of Rights.

Moralists like to believe that the views they impose are those of the majority, and they’ll cite polls and studies to back up that myth. But the truth of the matter is that moralists only trust democracy when it can be used to their advantage. The minute that it’s discovered that the majority of the people DO NOT agree with them, then moralists deride democracy and claim that their views OVERRIDE majority rule.

A perfect example of this was in Dover, Pennsylvania, when the members of the local school board who tried to impose creationism into the public curriculum were all voted out. The moralists immediately condemned the voters, with televangelist and moralist blowhard Pat Robertson going so far as to accuse the whole town of Dover of voting GOD out of their community. Had the ousted school board members actually kept their jobs, however, the moralists would have praised the local democratic process for "accurately reflecting the will of the people." "The will of the people", of course, being defined as THEIR will OVER the people.

Moralism versus Choice: A free society gives people choices about how they want to live their lives. You can live one way, or you can live another. You can watch what you want, you can read what you want, and you can listen to what you want. Living a hedonistic or repressive lifestyle, then, is a matter of personal taste.

Moralists HATE choice. They don’t believe in choice, unless it’s a choice to agree to their views. Choice gives people the option to NOT agree with their efforts, which is something that moralists do not want people to have. Remember that moralists believe that THEIR views are THE established, universal, and unquestionable rules for everyone. There is no alternative as far as they are concerned. That’s why they try to get the government to impose their views, because then the only choice is obedience or prison.

Moralism versus Responsibility: In a free society, the lines of responsibility are pretty much limited to the individual. As an individual, you are responsible for your actions, and for your actions alone. As a parent, though, you are also responsible for the actions of your children until they become old enough to be considered individual adults.

Unfortunately, moralists have a different view of responsibility. In their definition of the term, you are not only responsible for your own actions, but also for the actions of everyone else. This is especially true when children are involved, because according to the moralists, EVERYONE is responsible for the actions of children. Everything you do, even if you don’t have kids, somehow has an effect on the little tykes. The whole idea of "It Takes a Village To Raise A Child" that Hillary Clinton loves to talk about reflects the moralist perspective of responsibility.

But even if you take children out of the equation, moralists contend that there is such a thing as "communal morality", and that this "communal morality" reflects everyone’s actions. If YOUR actions don’t match up with this "communal morality", then YOU are supposedly responsible for the demise of the community. If crime goes up, it’s because you picked up a copy of Playboy Magazine. It’s got nothing to do with socioeconomic changes or the actions of robbers, rapists, and drug dealers. No, crime exists, according to the moralists, because YOU picked up a nudie mag! And crime will continue to go up until YOU decide to get rid of that nudie mag, publicly condemn the nudie mag, and work to ban all nudie mags from existence.

Moralism versus Diversity: In a truly free society, diversity is the NATURAL side effect of choice. You can’t help but realize that there are many different options in a free society, like having five hundred completely different channels on TV, and it’s up to you to pick which ones are to your liking.

Since we’ve already established that moralists hate choice, it’s pretty much a given that they’re not too happy about diversity either. They’re more of a homogenous group. They don’t mind having five hundred channels, but only if all of those channels convey the same message (theirs). Oh, they’ll make SOME concessions for diversity, but never outside of their own personal comfort zone, and only if it serves to exemplify their own cause.

Moralism versus Tolerance: In a truly free society, tolerance is the NATURAL side effect of responsibility. Having a variety of options in society and understanding that personal responsibility means that you are only responsible for your own actions encourages people to accept the choices made by others as long as they also accept the responsibility of those choices.

For moralists, though, tolerance is only one-way. Moralists believe that WE have to tolerate THEIR dominance in society, and that’s pretty much it. Moralism isn’t about tolerance, but rather it is about INTOLERANCE… as in THEIR intolerance of other options, other opinions, other beliefs, or of other people. They wouldn’t be moralists if they weren’t intolerant; they’d just be moral people.

Moralism versus Freedom: In a free society, freedom is the default. It is considered to be the birthright of all people.

Moralists hate freedom just as much as they hate choice. To them, freedom is a luxury, to be enjoyed only as THEY see fit, and in only the forms and mannerisms that THEY proscribe. The minute freedom comes in conflict with one of their pet projects, such as a social crusade, or a war, then that "privilege" is revoked, and it can only be returned if the moralists feel comfortable in giving it back to the public.

While we’re at it, let’s also compare moralism to the two dominant and outdated political philosophies. Since Democrats and Republicans like to characterize things in terms of the two-dimensional, zero-sum philosophies, let’s see how moralism stands with them.

Moralism versus Conservatism: Conservatives like to consider themselves being the champions of what has worked before. They see themselves as traditionalists, who long to return to the days of limited government and personal responsibility. They also love free markets and think that businesses should be free to engage in any kind of commerce without any kind of government restrictions.

Moralists find themselves flocking to the conservative side because THEY WERE in charge of things traditionally. They can easily play up the "heritage" cause because they have a long history of running things in society… for good and for bad. Hey, how many groups can claim to be on BOTH sides of every war in human history?

But moralists have a really hard time with the whole bit about "limited government" and "personal responsibility" that conservatives claim to honor. As already demonstrated, they don’t believe in "personal responsibility", and they certainly wouldn’t want to support anything that limits THEIR power in government. This is why the so-called "Reagan Republicans" have a hard time supporting the efforts of Republicans in Washington, including that of President George W. Bush, because they have betrayed the selling points of the Reagan years. (In truth, however, even the Reagan Administration failed to practice what they preached.)

As for the free market… moralists have no problem with a free market economy, but only as long as that market reflects THEIR views and doesn’t do anything that brings THEIR ideas into doubt or question. They’re certainly not fond of the corporations have even a passive, third-hand link to sexually explicit material.

Moralism versus Liberalism: Liberals like to see themselves as looking towards the future. They proudly pick up the twin banners of diversity and tolerance. They’re also big on personal freedoms and have assumed credit for many advances in personal liberty in the past, including the fight for civil and gender rights.

You would think that moralists passionately hate liberals because they would represent everything that moralists oppose. But the truth of the matter is that liberals have their moralist factions as well.

Moralists love to pick up on the liberal tendencies for socialism and communism, since it destroys the concept of personal responsibility. They find it easy to impose their idea of "communal standards" when the concept of individuality is destroyed, and that also keeps the liberal causes of personal freedom in check. They also use liberalism to keep the business world in check, since liberals passionately oppose the free market economy.

Let’s get brutally honest here… as aptly demonstrated here, moralism is not only incompatible with a free society, it is diametrically opposed to it.

Moralism is autocratic in nature. It is dictatorial. It is about ENSLAVEMENT. It is about FORCING people to adhere to standards and beliefs whether or not they personally agree with and accept them. To that end, moralists will latch onto whatever political movement is in power at the time and they will morph and corrupt that movement until it serves their own ends.

Look at what moralists did with the feminist movement. Where once the movement was about freedom and opening possibilities for women, the moralists managed to corrupt and corrode the message until it became nothing more than a bitter anti-sex, anti-male, entitlement group dependant on the government. Moralists twisted the feminist movement until it became the perfect companion-piece to their conservative groups so they could further demonstrate that their anti-sex cause was "non-partisan".

The important thing that people need to understand is that much like freedom, moralism goes beyond the traditional two-dimensional political spectrum. It’s a corrupting influence that destroys both liberal AND conservative concepts of a free society. In order for freedom to thrive, morality must be wrested from the grip of the moralists.