December 11, 2017

It’s always instructive to hear how people in politics view themselves to justify their actions.  Last week, Howard Dean and New York Times columnist David Brooks were among those who participated in a debate at Wake Forest University.  The premise was that liberals occupy the “moral high ground,” and the pursuit of liberal policies will inevitably result in more moral outcomes than the pursuit of conservative policies.  (I think you could easily disprove that just by comparing the Grammy Awards to the Dove Awards, but let’s keep this on a higher plain.)  

There are some interesting quotes at the link, and video of the entire debate.  But just as a preview, I think the wisest thing quoted was Brooks’ questioning of the entire premise.  He said that thinking you occupy higher moral ground than people who disagree with you is a pernicious concept, and assuming you’re morally superior to other people is probably a sign you’re not.   

The silliest comment: Dean’s argument that liberals aren't claiming moral superiority to conservatives, only that they hold the moral high ground.  Right, big difference.  Although to be fair, I have met a fair number of liberals who probably think it’s much better to occupy the moral low ground.


Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

Comments 1-5 of 5

  • Amelia Little

    12/14/2017 01:54 PM

    One facet of "moral high ground" would have to be those accused of the immoral practice of sexual harassment--and while I am sure there are some Republicans (other than President Trump and Judge Moore) who have had accusations tossed at them, it sure seems that there are a bunch of Democrats whose morals aren't on any high ground. And, I'm wondering who, if anyone, is in charge of checking the veracity of all the claims? While I am sure there are accusations that are true, there are probably those that are not. We see that in people wanting to get in on whatever the current action is, get a few minutes of fame, etc, and those who do things that have people crying racism or sexism or anti-LGBT ism---when it is found that the actions were actually by the people crying. Just saying, before anyone is condemned to hell and out of their political offices (elected by the people, whom maybe I don't agree with, but elected, nevertheless) there should be some checking into what is true and what is not.

  • Ricky Jackson

    12/12/2017 04:24 PM

    Howard Dean, the man that single-handedly took down President Nixon by hiding material facts, feeding false information, hiding evidence, and a lot more. He and Alexander Haig have a special place in hell for what they did, and Howie has the gall to speak of morals?? He sang like a bird, lied like a rug, and G. Gordon Liddy kept his mouth shut and took the full fury of the court to protect the President. Howard Dean is not worthy to pick up dog droppings.

  • Charlotte Vogel

    12/12/2017 06:24 AM

    He who is without sin should cast the first stone. No one on CNN has ever done anything bad? Really????? What has happened to the fact that one is innocent until proven guilty? Why don't I get on TV and state that you fiddled while America burned. The media would do the rest for me.

  • Joseph Trokey

    12/11/2017 10:14 PM

    The Pharisees thought they held the high moral ground, too. I believe Jesus called them " vipers" and said they were of their father Satan.

  • Barry Payne

    12/11/2017 02:08 PM

    It only the moral high ground for Dems if they redefine the concept of morals and ethics. Sort of a Clinton thing to change the definition of words to suit your own actions.