More divisive than ever?

Several conservatives I know have gotten themselves into hot water these past few weeks because of their supposed incivility toward liberals. Meanwhile, liberals seems to be stepping up their ad hominem attacks on conservatives, and particularly Sarah Palin. My sister-in-law summed up neatly something I have been sensing for a few weeks: this election is different than presidential elections past. "It is feeling really intense, divisive, and almost antagonistic to me – even among my friends," she observed.

I think, to some extent, the identification of incivility is overstated. An increasing number of people seems to take offense at civil, direct factual claims. So, for example, when I claimed recently that Obama is morally self-deceived on the issue of abortion, an acquaintance excoriated me for slandering and "wanting to win," whatever that means. But I didn't slander Obama (see New York Times v. Sullivan). Nor do I particularly want McCain to win (though I really don't want Obama to win). And I did not engage in an ad hominem attack. Obama's stance on abortion is morally indefensible. And that fact is relevant both to the substance of his position on abortion and to the question of his judgment. Both of those questions are relevant to his campaign for the presidency.

On the other hand, I suspect most Americans who know someone of the opposite ideology have experienced some genuine incivility these past few weeks. I have. Is it worse this year, or does it just seem that way? I have the impression that it is worse. And I think there are three causes.

First, I wonder whether Facebook and blogs have exacerbated the problem. I suspect a lot of conclusory/slightly-ad-hominem comments that people made to their ideological soulmates over the kitchen table in elections past are now appearing in the status bar on Facebook, which of course is open for all to see.

Second, I think Obama and Palin are pitch-perfect representatives of the cultural divide in a way that no national candidate has ever been before. To have them both in the same election is just too much for civility to bear. Obama represents everything I detest about the liberal elite. And Palin seems to really raise the ire of that same liberal elite.

Finally, I think the two cultures in American society have drifted further apart since 2004, thanks to the same-sex marriage decisions and Bush's mistakes in Iraq. Just when a consensus was starting to develop about the immorality of abortion and the need for better health care policy, along came the Massachusetts and California courts and a badly-botched counter-insurgency in Iraq.

These are not excuses, but I think they are reasons why this election has been so gut-wrenching. It's likely to get worse in the next few weeks.

American values shifting left

I do not believe in fear-mongering. But these numbers do not bode well for our great nation.

Superficial dandies

I was trying to make sense of a student evaluation yesterday. One of my students complained at last semester's end (though the semester ended in May, I only got around to reading my evaluations yesterday) that I was too hard on him or her and that I needed to understand that not everyone is as privileged as I.

That struck me as odd. Privileged? Really? As I have mentioned here before, I grew up in poverty and busted my hump for decades to get out. And because I tell my students a very abbreviated version of my life story at the end of the year (I intend it as inspiration, not cannon fodder) my students are aware of this fact. So the claim that I am privileged struck a particularly discordant tone.

Reading Thomas Sowell's column today cleared things up for me. Sowell observes of our contemporary culture:

People who have achieved success are often referred to as "privileged," especially by the intelligentsia. Achievements used to be a source of inspiration for others but have been turned into a source of grievance for those without comparable achievements.

I see this phenomenon frequently in some (but not most) of my students. Another student complained that I was playing favorites. The basis for the charge? I praise students who answer questions correctly and do not give similar praise to those who get the answer wrong.

This entitlement mentality goes hand in hand with the "incessant self-dramatization" to which Sowell rightly objects. Increasingly, young people nurture the notion that they deserve success regardless of merit. They seem to believe that achievements, fame, and honors are like lottery winnings. How have we failed them so badly?

At last, a tax I can heartily support

A tax on porn in California? Eugene Volokh doubts its constitutionality. He asserts that "the law targets not just unprotected and illegal obscenity, but also constitutionally protected pornography."

For those of you who are not corrupted by a law school education and not familiar with the Supreme Court's bizarre obscenity doctrines, simply know that the Court in its infallible judgment claims to discern a difference between obscene porn and merely erotic porn. Merely erotic porn is constitutionally protected, while obscene porn is not.

If the California tax proposal is over-inclusive, that problem can be remedied. The bill can be amended to exclude so-called "soft porn." It could, for example, provide a defense to a claim for non-payment of the tax that the material to be taxed is protected under extant Supreme Court obscenity rules. The bill would then permit men to buy not-too-naughty magazines, with all of their manifest artistic and literary value, free of the 25% tax. The men are happy, the Supreme Court is happy, and the people of California can tax the heck out of an industry that objectifies women's bodies, encourages vicious conduct, and swamps millions of men in an unhealthy addiction.

The amended bill would have the addional, ancillary effect of demonstrating how silly and unworkable the Supreme Court's obscenity jurisprudence is. Amended to exclude constitutionally-protected material, the tax bill would generate massive litigation over the question what counts as obscene porn and what constitutes merely erotic porn. Dockets in California would expand accordingly. And that's a good thing. Let the courts bear the costs of their own forays into obscenity regulation.

Why the social conservative platform benefits homosexuals

Titus' post below calls to mind a canard commonly traded among homosexuality advocates, academics, and the mainstream media, that those of us who defend conjugal (monogamous, opposite-sex) marriage and oppose special rights for homosexuals are motivated by some anti-gay animus. We here in the Cloakroom have recently expressed our opposition to same-sex marriage (here, here, and here) and to Ted Kennedy's so-called "Employment Non-discrimination Act." It behooves us, I think, to explain why our positions are borne not out of antipathy toward homosexuals but rather out of principles of universally-accessible practical reason.

The case for conjugal marriage and the case against distinguishing homosexuals as a suspect class under the Equal Protection clause and federal employment discrimination laws both begin with the observation that not all sexual acts are equally good. That is to say, not all sexual acts fulfill a basic human good. In fact, only monogamous, conjugal, marital sex draws a person into the two-in-one-flesh communion that integrates the human person. Unless one adopts the view that sex is something less than what it self-evidently is, one cannot argue that all sex acts are equally constitutive of, and fulfilling of, the instrinsic good of marriage.

Sexual acts performed outside the intrinsically-valuable relationship of conjugal monogamy disintegrate the human person by objectifying the human body. This is true of fornication, adultery, pornography, and homosexual acts. The institution of conjugal marriage promotes the integration of human persons by directing sexuality into the channel in which it instantiates a basic, human good. And it disincentivizes disintegrating, non-marital sex acts.

Homosexuality advocates respond that, while conjugal marriage may be well and good for heterosexuals, homosexuals want no part in it. Homosexuals, they argue, are fulfilled by pursuing their preference for same-sex intimacy. The autonomous choice of same-sex intimacy enables homosexuals to express their true identities.

The fundamental problem with this response is its failure to distinguish between proclivity and choice. As the Vatican has affirmed in recent years, homosexuality is a tendency and not an identity. That a person struggles with homosexual temptation does not entail that he should succumb to that temptation. I have known men (perhaps I have also known women in this category, though they have not so identified themselves to me) overcome the temptation to homosexual acts and lead healthy, fulfilling lives in their victory.

When Gene Robinson, the Episcopal priest who abandoned his wife for a homosexual lover and whom the Episcopal Church in New Hampshire nevertheless elected as Bishop in 2003, called alcoholism a "disease," he was on to something. However, he failed to see the implications of that fitting appellation. The parallels between alcoholism and homosexuality are many. Both disorders stem from a compulsive proclivity. Both take something that is essentially good -- the fruit of the vine in one case, human sexuality in the other -- and pervert the goodness beyond recognition. Both destroy. Though neither proclivity is a sin, both drive people to indulge in unhealthy, disintegrating acts.

Laws creating a special class for homosexuals encourage homosexuals to identify themselves as homosexuals. We would never create a special class in employment discrimination law for alcoholics, because such a classification would encourage people who tend to drink too much to identify themselves as alcoholics. Such a law would cause moral, and perhaps physical and psychological, harm to those persons.

Homosexuality activists claim, dishonestly, that they want equality with heterosexuals. When subjected to the same rules as everyone else -- uniform pre-requisites for marriage, anti-discrimination laws that permit discrimination based upon tendencies -- they demand special treatment. Special treatment means legal approbation for choices that harm. That is why we here in the Cloakroom oppose creation of special classes for homosexuals.

The Christian perspective takes this one step further. If, as Christians like myself believe, all sexual activity outside of monogamous, conjugal marriage disintegrates human persons and relationships, then we are doing homosexuals no favor by giving the approbation of the state to choices that harm them. In fact, we are discriminating against them by denying the same grace -- truth about the sinfulness of their actions and the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and forgiveness and restoration to the way God made them -- that we Christians are to extend to all sinners, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

On a personal note, I invite anyone who considers me antipathetic to homosexuals or a homophobe to consider these facts. I shared an apartment with a homosexual in college. I have two openly gay cousins. I have other close friends who have struggled with, and overcome, homosexual temptation. I want the best for these friends. That is why I am so firm on these issues.

Oh what a tangled web we weave

When first we practice to deceive.

Logging into my gmail account this morning I was amazed to see a new feature. Gmail users can now backdate emails. More than that, one can "make emails look like they've been read all along." Surely Google is not deliberately abetting dishonesty, is it?

Well, as a matter of fact, yes. Here's the pitch line: "Worry less. Forget your finance reports. Forget your anniversary. We'll make it look like you remembered."

Forget Exxon. Forget Haliburton. How about Google's corporate irresponsibility?

UPDATE: One smells a rat. Surely I have fallen prey to an April Fool's joke, no? Google's lawyers would never allow such a thing. The liability alone would be enormous.

UPDATE (Titus): Boy were we fooled! Judging by the Gmail testimonials, this is indeed an April Fool's joke...and a good one.