The Governor Is Wearing No Clothes

The headline at http://wcbstv.com/politics/eliot.spitzer.resigns.2.674646.html reads:

"RESIGNED TO DISGRACE"

"Eliot Spitzer Steps Down Following Biggest Scandal In Modern New York Political History"

I have not been following the Eliot Spitzer story too closely, because I live in Tennessee. However, I feel that people would do well to observe how this whole thing is playing out, because it is reflective of the mind set of people on a national level.

Before I go there, however, I need to say this is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is not a Liberal or Conservative issue. It is a moral issue, in which an ordinary man somehow got caught up in the immoral and illegal world of prostitution. Although he was governor, and a rising political star, he is still just an ordinary man. He has lusts, desires, dreams and goals, like we all do. Ironically, the laws this ordinary man helped create and enforce in his state were also the same laws which brought him down. Because of the position he held as governor, he is not being offered a plea deal. Also, this is appropriate because of the moral position he took in passing laws to eradicate these very crimes in his state.

However, I was perplexed about one thing. It seems as if there was a question of whether or not he should resign. Why was there any question at all? This is no different than the situation conservatives have found themselves in, namely Senator Larry Craig and Rev. Ted Haggard. A situation of this magnitude requires moral clarity. However, when there is no standard of morality, and when the concept of absolute truth is tossed out the window, quick action that is normally required for such issues as Spitzer found himself in is not easily arrived at.

And therein lies the topic of this article: moral authority is lost when a moral foundation is absent. As our great nation "progresses" into post-modernism, we find ourselves trying to reconcile post-modern thought with the principles of our Founding Fathers. Be they Deists, Theists, Baptists,  or otherwise, the majority of the Founding Fathers still held on to one common thread: the authority of scripture as the basis for personal and national morality. Scattered throughout their writings were words like "divine providence", "God", and "Creator". They recognized the Godly foundation of all life, and swore to hold it high in the public sector. As we have continued toward a multicultural society, the foundation of our society has shifted from an absolute authority (scripture) to a pseudo-foundation based on humanism and relativistic morality. The categorial imperative is no more: it's all relative.

Which leads me back to the Spitzer issue. We are no longer basing our decisons based upon principles, we base them on conditions. The decision moves from clear decisive language such as "I have done X, therefore I must do Y." to language more like "What decision should we make in this situation? Well, that depends on..."

Sure, we must bring as many factors as we can into our decision making, because factors affect them. However, there are times for decisions when principles outweigh factors, and Spitzer's decision was one of them. What should have been a fast and quick decision instead took handwringing, contemplation, and consideration. Well pardon my unbending, unyielding self, had this ordinary man been a moral man, he would would not have found himself in this situation. Furthermore, had he been a man with any sort of moral foundation (even if he did not do the moral thing) he should have some basis for his decision, and not have taken such a long time to come to it. And before any liberals attack my words, I feel the same way about Senator Craig and Rev. Haggard. Why do I feel that way? Because principles based on scripture are neither Republican or Democratic, they are just right. It so happens that these principles declared that the governor is wearing no clothes. These principles are indeed right, figuratively and literally.