Erick Erickson again provides a great window into the heart of a Religious Conservative. And it isn’t pretty.
One short sentence, embedded deeply in his post says, “And I would far rather a Democrat in the Senate than a kid toucher.” This simple sentence is straight forward. But, it is a lie. Erick Erickson, Donald Trump, Kelly Conway, and those supporting Moore, need a Conservative vote, and they will take anyone that will vote their way. Even if he is, as Erick writes, “a kid toucher.”
For full disclosure, I did not believe Clinton’s accusers Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers. I thought it was, part of the ”
vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
But, in hindsight, I should have believed the women accusing Clinton. I now recognize that my disbelief of Clinton’s accusers was based on my own tribalism. I now think that men accused of the things Moore is being accused should have to defend themselves. They need to be more credible than the women accusing them.
The ugly truth Erick exposes in his post is that for Religious Conservatives, the “means justifies the end.” (Now, I’m willing to accept that for the broader tribe that we call Fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians don’t agree with Moore’s supporters.) But, for this Conservative Sub-Tribe of Religious Conservatives (of which Erick Erickson is a thought leader), support of Roy Moore exposes that one’s moral character doesn’t matter. All that matters to this Tribe of Religious Conservatives is that Community Law Makers make laws that force others to live the way they want everyone to live.
For the sub-tribe of Conservatives we call Religious Conservatives, the reality they would vote for someone without a moral center, clearly exposes a “means to an end” approach to the world around them. It clearly exposes the hollowness of their “deeply held religious views” to reflect a practical political reality. As long as someone is going to force others to live like them (forced childbirth once pregnant and forced prayer in pubic gatherings for just two examples) then even the Devil is acceptable.
Erick likes to list “facts.” Well, I think a fact we can all agree on is: throughout history, men have preyed on women in general and young women in particular. And men with power often get away with it. (Can I get an AMEN!)
John Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Al Franken, John Conyers, Henry VIII, FDR, Thomas Jefferson, and millions of men throughout history have abused their power to sexually exploit women and girls. What makes anyone think that it is not possible for a powerful man like Roy Moore to do it.
Erick Erickson’s post exposes the one thing that makes people doubt Roy Moore could have done the things he’s accused of – Roy Moore says he is a Christian. It is a magic get out of jail card for Christians. All one has to do is say they are a Christian and raise money to fight for Christian causes and the flock will overlook anything. Couple this with a belief that anyone that is not part of your Christian Tribe is “evil” and “the devil” then it is easy to see how selective perception, motivated reasoning, and confirmation bias, will expose the ugly truth that this particular Christian Tribe is totally devoid of rationality.
Roy Moore’s opponent, Doug Jones, is also a Christian, (Members of Roy Moore’s and Erick Erickson’s tribe would vote for Roy Moore, even if it was proved he was guilty of what he is being accused of, if, God forbid Doug Jones would be a Jewish Socialist in the mold of Bernie Sanders.)
Response to Erick Erickson’s Facts
Erick list some facts. As usual he is wrong that they are all facts.
#1 – Erick says, “Roy Moore has been happily married since 1985.” How does he know this? Many marriage that look happy from the outside are anything but. He is not a part of that marriage and so this is clearly not a fact. Even if they say they are “happily married” we have no way to prove it is a fact.
#2 – “There have been no allegations of infidelity in that time.” That is simply not true. There were allegations. Moore denied them. But there were allegations. But, even if the fact is true, that there were no allegations, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
#3 – “allegations never surfaced when he was battling against people who savor nasty political character assassinations.” This is a great question. Is it a fact? Were there no “allegations” before? See #2 above.
#4 – “He stood defiant about the Ten Commandments as the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and no one dragged this stuff out when he was in the national spotlight.” Again I’m not sure it is a fact that “no one dragged this stuff out” before. Remember, in terms of the Ten Commandments, Moore was found guilty and removed from the bench for violating the Constitution. Perhaps, that was enough and those that knew about the allegations did not want to expose the women to the kinds of attacks they are experiencing now.
This actually raises the important point. Let’s assume that any of the four facts Erick listed were found to be in reality not a fact. What if it is found that there were in fact allegations before? Would that change anyone’s mind?
The simple answer is no. Even if it is proved that there were allegations, or if a reasonable explanation as to why these women did not come forward before was presented, this Sub-Tribe of Religious Conservatives would still vote for Moore, simple because they can.