From Ryan Lizza at the New Republic, here's a great little gaffe on Democrats and "American values". Lizza got the following quote from a senior Kerry advisor (in reference to the Ricky Ray Rector case):
"Clinton went back and executed that retarded guy. That said, 'I share your values.'"
Like all the best gaffes, this is true but just a little too blunt. The "values" the Dems lack aren't anything Christlike. They are the values of authoritarianism, militarism, and bare knuckled social discipline. But you aren't quite supposed to say that out loud. The questions it raises about the relationship between morality and "values" are a bit too complex.
I thought all the earnest social commentary about gay marriage after the election was pretty hilarious given that Abu Ghraib and the high level administration involvement in the planning of sexualized torture there was completely absent from the campaign. The Bushies set up a sadomasochistic gay rape factory, but they sure held the line on consensual gay marriage. Nothing says "I share your values" like sodomizing a suspected "evildoer". You just know the Democrats would have been too squeamish for that.
The thing is, this makes emotional if not ethical sense. It falls into place when you think of politics as a matter of identity, not ideas. "Values" -- especially "conservative" ones -- are a shorthand for tribal identity, the willingness to police the group and punish those who don't pay the proper respect to its mores. Defending the tribe can be a pretty morally ambiguous enterprise. As action movies teach us, a willingness to cut moral corners is evidence of true committment to the cause. Hence the suspicion of a "liberal" party committed to universalistic and not just tribal values (global test, anyone?).
What's infuriating is that right now the morally superior path is also the more effective way to defend American interests. It's patently obvious that Abu Ghraib harmed American security, that the lies behind the Iraq invasion did as well. It's also obvious that Americans have benefited from alliances over the last century, not been harmed by them. But in this election signalling tribalism, being "one of us" and not a suspiciously foreign-influenced intellectual type, was apparently more important than thinking about security.
Marcus Stanley
