The Boys in Blue Clean up the Immoral Stain Left by “The Lord of Marador”
A definition of moral might be thought of as the awareness of good and bad behavior as measured within a society. Another way of saying this is that morality is an arbitrary measure of behavior within the accepted boundaries of a society. For example there are those in our society who think that abortion is bad behavior. There are also those in our society who think that abortion is the choice of the mother at the time of need. Both are morally correct within their personal measure of behavior. If we can accept that both have moral high ground dependent upon the context of their observations, then we must ask the second question in this series — Is it moral for someone who is not familiar with the woman’s context to decide what that woman should or should not do? This, of course, opens the Pandora’s box of Women’s Rights. But the question I wish to explore here is not about any of that, really. I’m more concerned with how did we arrive at this juncture where such a personal choice is a matter of open hostility between people? I think an argument can be made concerning the idea that we have lost our moral compass as a society.
Perhaps the most glaring road sign is our continued infatuation with that Gotham City chap who moved to Florida to escape the dark tower in which he had lived. There was never any indication that that fellow would ever understand the morality of the country he has proposed to lead. But that did not prevent a rather large segment of the society from lauding his immorality. There are even leading political voices defending the misdoing of that fellow even after he is out of office. How could anyone miss how his behavior is not exactly good for the society? Is it that folks are afraid of opposing immoral behavior?
I have trouble accepting that explanation. It appears to me that those who have missed his questionable moral relationship with the truth actually could not believe that anyone could be that duplicitous. It’s hard to fault them. I think we have all been led to believe things that were not exactly as they were represented. Let’s take the Republican candidate for Governor of Arizona. It’s obvious that the lady may actually believe that the 2020 election was rigged, but she knows that she is blowing so much smoke about voiding that election. Even that does not lead me to believe that she is not a moral person. But I have to observe that her current actions are not moral at all. It can not be moral to represent as true, a patent falsehood to your constituency.
I think that people need to have undeniable proof that what they believe, is not as they believe it to be. For example, should the trove of documents removed from the famous club in Florida prove to have been shared with foreign interests, many of the faithful will have a change of heart simply because they will not accept an action of such moral depravity. The thing that might make such a behavior deemed immoral would be a betrayal of the people that guy is supposed to be representing. It won’t be a question of right and wrong that will determine their attitude. It will be a sense of betrayal. It just could be that betrayal exposes the betrayer as someone who has no guiding principles at all. That fellow may be celebrated for upsetting the apple cart, but never for betraying his supporters.
But this same betrayal is not limited to the ex-big guy. There’s a Senator from South Carolina who’s betrayal to his office is beginning to show. There’s a Representative from Georgia who openly calls for the overturning of the government. There are Governors in Florida and Texas who use the abuse of their people as money raising events and blatantly censor and limit speech. There is an entire political party dedicated to supporting murder and mayhem in order to increase profit for a certain segment of the manufacturing sector.
This is not to say that we’re on our way to hell in a handbasket. Oh heavens no. There is also a Senate candidate who carries the dates of the death of people murdered on his watch. There is a Senator who puts her career and reputation on the line to stand up to the immoral behavior of a misunderstood man. There is a new guy who has been generous with his people. The new guy has provided for the future to the best of his current ability. There is a keen and growing interest in legal and law enforcement limits and responsibilities. There is a large segment of the political sphere which is concerned with government for the betterment of the people governed. There is a candidate for governor of Texas who is demonstrating moral outrage at callousness of any ilk.
If I were a man of more imagination I think I’d say that the Orcs of Marador will not defeat the house of Dark Brandon. It is not moral to oppress people. If a political system oppresses the people it governs, the system will fail. No one wants to be oppressed. Even sadists want to be free to express themselves. Which leads to the question of why would an entire political party seem to be dedicated to holding women hostage to the party’s desires? Haven’t we already had this discussion? How was it that women got the right to vote? Was it because it was the moral thing to do? Why was Roe decided the way it was? Was it also the moral thing to do?
It is likely that there are discussions of this nature which will continue to occur for the foreseeable future, but social morality will always win out. That is the trajectory of freedom across history. Civilization has always moved from oppression to freedom. The Lord of Marador will probably be exposed as the immoral character that he is and his devotees will, no doubt, begin to backslide into the comforts of the freedom to do as they see fit again. I have to remember that Franklin Roosevelt followed Herbert Hoover. Roosevelt was elected four times. Hoover subscribed to the oppressor morality rather like the Lord of Marador. Roosevelt championed the economy so that the people could prosper. He was hampered by a World War but he did end the depression economy. The economy that the Roosevelt/Truman administrations left was able to build an interstate highway system. I don’t think I understand these folks who are dissatisfied with the federal government. It ain’t perfect and it can be improved, but I don’t see improvement coming through oppression. I think that if Democrats continue to invest in the future of the country, the November midterms will be theirs to lose. But with the likes of the senate candidate from Pennsylvania and the candidate for governor in Texas as moral champions of appropriate behavior, I can’t see the immoral champions of deceit having a chance at many political wins. It could just be that immoral behavior has consequences that are easy to miscalculate.
