The RNC’s small-scale morality

I posted this over at my blog at TrueSlant, but it’s so short — what the heck — I’ll submit it for your disappoval here.

For decades, the RNC allowed its employees to get a subsidized abortion. For one night, its young donors received an all-expenses-paid visit to a strip-and-bondage club. Guess which sin miscue caused heads to roll?


Mark Stricherz


Mark Stricherz is the author of Why the Democrats Are Blue: Secular Liberalism and the Decline of the People's Party.

  • Kamilla

    Has anyone followed up on this? Has the coverage actually been removed from the policy?

    Psalm 146:3

  • Kevin in Texas

    Both situations are shameful stains on the RNC and the Republican Party as a whole, Mark. Seems nobody is minding the store there, and sin is a natural result of concupiscence, so the lack of oversight will only lead to more of it. Kind of reminds me of many of the bishops who were complicit for so long in shielding abusive priests worldwide.

    Very sad, but someone must take responsibility and hold others responsible, as well. At least in the case of the Republicans, voters have some influence, and if the ne’er-do-wells refuse to listen (like the Obamabot Democrats nowadays), then we’ll send them packing come election time. One wishes there were something more we could do as the lay faithful when bishops will not hold themselves responsible for the moral integrity and smooth functioning of the dioceses that have been entrusted to them. There are, thank God, many more good bishops who take their responsibilities and the clear teachings of the Church seriously, than there are bad bishops, but for those who live under the “guidance” of bad bishops, well, living faithful to the Church can be difficult.

  • Mark

    Term Limits

  • R.C.

    You’re spot-on.

    But what to do? Where to turn?

    I mean, you have a party where only half of the folks are really pro-life, a quarter are pro-life with nonsensical exceptions for rape and incest, and a quarter are pro-choice. And even the ones who’re really pro-life sometimes say, “Ehh, I don’t know how much political capital we can afford to spend if it costs us in other areas.”

    Nasty, that.

    But the alternative? The alternative is a party where the closest thing to a pro-life view that’s permitted among the leadership is “safe, rare, and legal” — an even more badger-sputumly incoherent formulation than the rape/incest exceptions — and where the few real pro-lifers are tokens, excluded from leadership, tolerated in red districts only, and then only as a sort of condescension to the neanderthals who live there, clinging to their guns and their religion and their two-parent, opposite-gendered families and other quaint concepts.

    So you have the dunderheads, and you have the demoniacs. What a choice.

    Casting about in vain for third-party alternatives, we find a couple of lesser players: the dopeheads and the druids, whose roles in national elections, for those who pick them as their first choice, is to prevent their second-best choice from getting elected.


    Let us all to prayers. For our God is omnipotent. He can show forth His glory, even in the halls of American politics.

    (Admittedly, I say that only by a deliberate act of faith, knowing that, if He were one shade less omnipotent, he would not be able to manage it.)

  • Erin Garlock

    Is there really a need for a party system?

    If we want to belong to a party so we can just blindly vote down party lines, mission accomplished. Do we have parties so the general masses don’t need to research their candidates or actually think about what they want or believe?

    This of course begs the question, Why do we vote? If your first choice has little chance of winning, is that because the people really would prefer someone else, or is it because the voting mechanism is broken and more or less reinforces a two-party system? Or is there perhaps something else I am missing?

  • Anna

    …at least half the time, I read this site just in the hope of getting to read your comments on any topic. “Badger-sputumly incoherent” – that’s a marvelous line, as is your pithy description of the various parties.

  • georgie-ann

    i think that the MSM has been able to so successfully turn rank sin into “entertainment”–or something of “casual” importance–in part because of the strange effect of the video screen to appear to be projecting reality, but of course it’s just an empty electronic image,…so the full human impact of what we become accustomed to viewing and interpreting is not really available to our perceptions,…

    by the time young people are released into the “adult” environment on their own recognizance, in curiosity trying to find the “real” experience that corresponds with all the video titillation they’ve absorbed in their thousands of hours of TV-watching, they are not only glamorizing the “glitz,” but they are operating in a semi-dehumanized mode which is completely missing the full impact of the “low-life” choices they are making/imitating/seeking,…

    many do not even have any solid teaching about sin, what it is, at all,…

    lost without a compass, evil begins to be portrayed as exciting or a choice,…

    if we saw many of these seedy things for what they are in real life, up close and personal, before being sold the glammed-up, sanitized media version, it’s possible that the true reality of the nature of these things–be it abortion or bondage–would communicate the essential ugliness that is really there,…

    our culture is living in a dehumanized dream world,…they certainly should “know better,” but they don’t,…