Would a Candidate say what is best?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Paul Shelby Lewis
 
"Better" is a term that has become nearly extinct in the language of our liberal news media.  Oh no, such a term is far too prickly, since it might hurt the feelings of someone from another culture, or offend someone who has a different moral standard, or (worse yet) make someone's inner child sad.  We are told, instead, to say, "I prefer culture X," or "That word makes me feel sad," or "I don't like it when you do that."  By using such terms, we avoid forcing our own beliefs about right and wrong on the other person; we show respect for him (if I can use the masculine gender to refer to a generic individual).
 
In a famous debate between Father Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell, Copleston began to press his Atheist antagonist on the nature of moral experience.  The following is what took place:
 
      Russell: You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.
      Copleston: Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or  how do you view the distinction between them?
      Russell: I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.
Copleston: Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow  by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?Russell: By my feelings.
 
Now, I will grant that the "do-not-offend-my-sensitivities" framework of our society and the feelings-based morality of Russell seem attractive to a growing number of individuals in our country and in our world.  I might (might) even grant that such a mentality is appealing on some level (if we are seeking the lowest common denominator).  But the sheer lunacy of both Russell's and society's "feelings first" approach to life is put on full display by the following quote.  In stating how he would have responded to Russell's claim, Ravi Zacharias stated, "Mr. Russell, in some cultures they love their neighbors; in others they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference" (Can Man Live Without God, 1996).
 
To say that modern liberal positions (if they can be called as much) are built with the fortitude of a sand castle would be an insult to the thousands of architectural toddlers that roam the beach on a daily basis.  They are rarely, if ever, based upon any argument.  They are never supported by facts.  They are, however, top-heavy with opinions, and even more bulbous in their dependence upon emotional, popular, and genetic fallacies.  Need evidence?  Watch any Republican or Democratic debate in which a candidate supporting abortion is asked to defend his position (John Kerry's response in a 2004 presidential debate is a prime example).
 
I am anxious to see a debate where differing ideas concerning issues such as abortion, how to deal with poverty, homosexuality, religion, school prayer, and others are put forth in such a way that a candidate is willing to say, "I believe X, you believe Y, and X is better than Y."  Imagine the following exchange:
 
Moderator:  Mr. Republican Candidate, you are against homosexual marriage.  Are you opposed to homosexuality too?
 
Republican Candidate:  I am opposed to homosexual marriage because I believe, fundamentally, that homosexual actions are wrong, and therefore homosexual marriage is wrong.  On an even more base level, pragmatically speaking, I believe and history has shown that it is better for society when people are heterosexual rather than homosexual. 
 
Or better yet:
           
Moderator:  Madam Democratic Candidate, you are in favor of a "woman's right to choose."  Why?
           
            Democratic Candidate:  I am for a "woman's right to choose" because I believe that a society that allows abortions to take place is better than one that does not.
 
Yes it is wishful thinking; to think that a candidate might actually say something meaningful in a debate rather than parsing words and fighting for the center, or attacking the character of the other candidate.