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 16: The Good, The Bad, And The Very Ugly
– by David Matthews 2

As you can probably guess from other sections of the "Target: Moralism" series, this commentator is a strong opponent of moralism. I believe that moralism is a cancer both on society and on individuals; one that is more destructive and more pervasive than every single one of the so-called "ills" that it rallies against.

So why is this commentator the only one who apparently can see the danger?

Well the best way to explain this is to compare moralism to an abusive relationship.

When you look at a relationship that is horribly abusive – either physically, psychologically, emotionally, or all of the above – you have to understand that it didn’t start out that way. Nobody consciously walks up to a perfect stranger, beats the crap out of them, insults them, destroys everything they are mentally, and then have them instantly fall in love.

No, the abuse happens gradually, over a period of time. The abuser brings that person into their control slowly. They win their trust. They win their support. They win their love. And then the abuser starts to dominate and control that person. And when the loved one begins to operate outside of "the norm", the abuser gradually works up the abuse. First it’s subtle. Then it is unmistakably abusive. And then eventually it becomes blatant enough for others to notice it. It may even happen right in front of other people.

And by that point, it’s already too late. The abuse has become engrained into that relationship enough for both sides to accept it as the way it must be. If you try to step in at this point, not only will the abuser deny any wrongdoing, but the abuser’s victim will actually DEFEND and JUSTIFY the abuse! That is how engrained the abuse really is!

That’s because the abuser’s victim doesn’t see the evil that exists in the abuser. All they can see is the love their abuser has for them. They will remember the flowers and the kisses and the presents and the feelings of being loved and wanted and needed. And they will put up with all of the abuse in the world to keep those feelings! They will actually blame themselves for every beating and every insult they get. They will go to their graves (and many have) saying, to themselves and out loud, "I deserve this. This is all my fault. I wasn’t good enough."

Well let’s get brutally honest here… THAT is the kind of relationship that moralists have with the rest of society. It is that of a predatory abuser.

And reason why society doesn’t recognize the abuse is because they REFUSE to. People, by in large, refuse to see the evil in moralism, and will instead only see the good effects.

Let’s be clear, THERE ARE some plusses to moralism. There have been some good works done because of their crusades.

Moralists provide structure where there sometimes is none. On an individual, one-on-one basis, moralists provide a good guide to those who seem to be looking for it, whether it’s Alcoholics Anonymous or the Boy Scouts.

And when the system is thoroughly screwed up, moralists at least are willing to take a stand and try to set down SOME semblance of justice.

Moralists were responsible for ending slavery in the United States. Prior to the abolition of slavery, it was pretty much a business arrangement for many parts of the country. It kept farms tended, it kept homes cleaned, and it kept workplaces busy. And if you were to challenge that in a debate, you were accused of endangering not just the livelihood of the slave-owners, but also of the people enslaved AND of society in general! That’s how engrained the system was prior to 1863.

Moralists changed that. Moralists stood up and said "IT IS WRONG to own other people!" And they didn’t care how it affected the economy! They didn’t care if it went against the status quo and everything people have been brought up to believe! They DECLARED it to be wrong, and they did everything possible to MAKE it wrong! And when certain states in America tried to break free in order to continue this business arrangement, moralists were ready and willing TO GO TO WAR to prevent it from happening.

Needless to say, the American Civil War was also the result of moralism. But of course the moralists patted themselves on the back afterwards and wrote off the carnage and destruction as necessary for the end result.

Moralists were also responsible for the enactment of child labor laws. As the Industrial Revolution kicked in, children ended up in the factories, often working long hours in sometimes extremely dangerous work. Of course, some economists argue that these conditions were present long before the existence of factories. If the kids weren’t worked to death in sweatshops, then they were worked to death in the farms, or as unpaid house servants, along with the other indentured servants of the time.

But again, that didn’t matter to the moralists. They declared it to be wrong, and they did everything possible – even proposing a failed constitutional amendment – to MAKE it wrong. They didn’t care about the consequences, only for the end result.

The struggle for civil rights was yet another moralist movement. Here were people who saw an injustice, they saw in imbalance in the system, and they moved to correct it at all costs. It didn’t matter if there were riots or abuses or if people died for the cause, the end result was all that mattered. And to some extent, it worked.

And of course history HAILS these efforts as good and noble and worthy of recognition. Moralists pat themselves on the back and talk about even MORE good things that they could do in the process, if only they had the authority to do them.

But sadly, these three instances are exceptions to the rule. By in large, moralism has got little to do with a truly noble cause and EVERYTHING to do with amassing power and wielding control over society. The noble cause, if it even exists, is just a prop once they get their hands on it.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving started out with a serious and noble cause. The organization was started to correct the injustices in the government concerning drunk driving. It started with a housewife who saw her daughter’s killer get off light in the courts. Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for moralists to pervert this cause into resurrecting the Temperance movement and pushing for new neo-Prohibitionist laws. Even the founder of MADD saw the abuse of this cause, but at that point she was in no position to do anything about it other than leave the organization. What exists today of that group is more concerned with banning alcohol and criminalizing its consumption than making the criminal justice system work to deal with the REAL offenders.

And while SOME of the moralist causes may seem "noble", their true intentions become plain once they begin to offer their "solutions".

The blatant and clearly anti-American effort to CENSOR broadcast media is one such moralist crusade. Sure the idea to "protect children" seems like a "noble" cause. There was even a legitimate excuse for the censorship of radio and television, namely the lack of parental controls and the lack of prior information about the content for parents to carry out their responsibilities.

Mind you, the moralist groups were BEGGING for such controls! They continually insisted that the ONLY reason why the government HAS to impose CENSORSHIP power on radio and television was because the parents didn’t have the necessary tools to do their jobs as parents.

But as soon as those means WERE put in place for television broadcasts, these same moralist groups that begged and pleaded for these controls immediately DISMISSED them as being ineffective! "They don’t work," these moralists cried out. "We can’t trust the parents to do their jobs and we can’t trust the broadcasters to be honest about the content! We HAVE to impose even MORE controls over them!"

And they have done just that. Congress and the White House, at the specific request of these same moralist groups, enacted federal laws that imposed even MORE draconian measures against broadcasters and multiplied their fines TENFOLD!

They lied. There’s really no other way to put it. THESE MORALIST GROUPS LIED!

They LIED about the justification for censorship. They LIED about the conditions by which such censorship can be lifted. They LIED about their desires for the development of parental controls and content ratings. And, most importantly, they LIED about the effectiveness of these same controls and ratings! It was all just a ruse to get, hold, and keep power over broadcasters.

Bear in mind that this is a crisis that was created for the benefit of the moralists! As has been pointed out by several organizations, ONE specific moralist group – the Parents Television Council – has been responsible for 99% of ALL complaints made to the Federal Communications Commission since they began tracking such complaints in 2003! And this is the same group that has been insisting on these controls… and then complain that these controls don’t work.

And this is just the beginning. As television and radio move away from the old analog standard and go to digital mediums such as cable and satellite, the moralists groups and the federal government are using the SAME justifications to target these mediums for censorship. Only this time they won’t bother to use the wishful carrot of parental controls. They’ll just hit these mediums hard with the self-righteousness of the GOVERNMENT… guided, of course, by these same moralist "experts".

THIS is the real effect of moralism in society. It takes something good and worthy and then twists it for its own ends. But nobody wants to recognize it because they are fixated on the "purity" of the noble cause.

In most instances, the abuse is outright dismissed because those in society share a common like or dislike with the moralists. They are able to play on your personal biases and then use them against you without you even knowing. Oh it’s easy to ignore the tearing down of church-and-state barriers as long as it’s YOUR church doing the breaching! It’s easy to talk about censorship when the forms of speech and expression being repressed are the kind that YOU object to. The abuse is absolutely permissible as long as it doesn’t affect anything that YOU personally do or say or think. Then, when the abuse DOES have an effect on your life – and it will eventually happen – then you’re not in a position to do anything about it. The abuse has become so engrained into society at that point that it is accepted simply as the way that it must be. It is justified and even rationalized, just like a battered spouse will do to explain his or her bruises.

Look, moralists have done SOME good in society, but those good deeds and the causes they claim to support should never eclipse the threat that moralism poses to a truly free society. They should no more be tolerated than we would tolerate a saintly husband beating up his wife in public. Their efforts need to be kept in continual check.