|
« The TB-GBs
Main |
November 06, 2003
Howard's cross-dressing
A reader takes me to task for reading too much into Michael Howard's 'Dianafied' utterances, and predicts that he will do as little as he can on social liberal issues and won't decriminalise cannabis. That may be true; but a politician who stands still while the agenda is flowing forward cannot escape the fact that this itself is a political position. Drug law liberalisation needs to be actively fought by any politician who really cares about the disadvantaged, the pitch we are told Howard is going to make later today. Equally, if a party leader chooses to take a neutral position on the many moves by the government to destroy moral and social norms and cause the further disintegration of the family by kicking away what remains of its props, such professed 'neutrality' actually connives at that disintegration. Abstention powerfully reinforces the moral relativist position that all lifestyles are equal, and everyone should be free to go to hell on a handcart and take the vulnerable with them. In the culture wars, there is no neutral territory. Posted by melanie at November 6, 2003
Comments
In the world of politics,"big changes",moral or otherwise, happen only after it is too late!In this context it is only possible to be wise after the event. I thought everybody knew that? Morality and what is good for people is decided by "events"(the weather,economics,war,epidemics etc.)and not by men or women or by what men or women say.Anyway,"solve one problem" and,immediately, another arises.(Man proposes,God disposes.)And all that a prophet can do is to cry in the wilderness. Posted by: at November 6, 2003 10:39 AMIt matters nothing that Michael Howard will probably not campaign for or against social liberalism. It only matters that he does not deter potential voters. If by some chance the electorate puts him into Downing Street it will be for the reason that Blair has finally spent all his capital of electoral goodwill, and for no other. Howard in office would be a different matter, of course, because the exercise of power has consequence. In that event, Melanie's point about neutrality would come fully into play. Posted by: Guessedworker at November 6, 2003 10:39 PMPolitical parties exist for the acquiring of political power not for ideolgical purity. A Conservative government would do more to uphold "moral and social norms" than a Labour one and in order to become elected Howard will use the language that will help propel him there. For instance, yes, marriage is a proven institution that has positive benefits for individuals and society as a whole. On the other hand talking about it is hardly a vote winner. You can't legislate to defend society from "moral relativism" unless you are in government and he's got to get there first. Posted by: free democrat at November 7, 2003 01:38 AM Hi, you can now downward an mp3 version of a BBC radio program featuring Melanie Phillips debating current cannabis law with ex drug smuggler Howard "MR NiCE" Marks. HERE: http://www.ukcia.org/mp3s/moral_maze_cannabis_28_01-04.mp3 Posted by: Andrew at February 2, 2004 04:11 AM |
