Roy Moore just the latest in the long line of politicians who want control

By David McElroy · November 10, 2017

Alabama Republican Roy Moore is the latest poster boy for political evil and hypocrisy. I agree that he’s evil. I agree that he’s a hypocrite. But at the core, he’s no different from any other politician who seeks the power to control other people.

I wasn’t really surprised when news came out Thursday that Moore is being accused of sexually pursuing teen girls when he was a county attorney in his early 30s. The youngest of the women to come forward so far says she was 14 and he was 32 when he took her to his home for clandestine meetings — where he gave her wine and undressed her until she asked him to take her home.

The mental and moral gyrations of the Republicans still defending Moore today are far more disturbing than the actual charges from the past. Some say it’s not that bad since only one of the girls was younger than the state age of consent, which is 16. One Republican elected official compared the situation to Joseph and Mary, the parents of Jesus, because Mary was a teen and Joseph was an older adult. There are plenty of other excuses from Moore’s supporters. (For the record, I find the women’s account of their interaction with Moore credible and troubling.)

So why was I not surprised at the charges?

My experience is that the things a person is most eager to control in others is frequently related to something he struggles with himself. How many times have we seen a conservative activist or politician work tirelessly against gay people but turn out to engage in gay sex himself? That doesn’t mean that everybody who believes homosexuality is wrong turns out to be a closeted gay man, but it does mean that those who turn it into an emotional crusade of hate are often hiding something they’ve struggled with.

Moore has seemed obsessed with sexual sin and with a strict adherence to Old Testament moral law. He claims he made a copy of the Ten Commandments for his courtroom when he was a local judge because he came to believe that many of the criminals coming before him wouldn’t have turned to crime if they had been exposed to those 10 Jewish commands.

Based on my observations of people such as Moore, I think it’s far more likely that he struggled with sexual sin — and possibly other moral issues — and he dealt with that by transferring the struggle to the accused men and women before him. That’s long been my gut feeling, which is why the behavior that’s been described doesn’t surprise me. It fits with the pattern I would have expected.

It’s really easy to point fingers at Moore, partly because he’s a buffoon and partly because he’s clearly a hypocrite. But I’m less inclined to make him a special case, simply because I see his core issue as no different from that of the rest of us.

To one degree or another, every single human being wants to control others. We don’t see ourselves as evil or controlling, though. We just honestly think we know better.

Moore and people like him are eager to dictate private moral behavior to others and they’re eager to use the power of the state to teach others to behave as they prefer. Many Republicans and most social conservatives love this sort of controlling person. It’s easy for Democrats and those of the progressive left to hate such a controlling person.

But politicians on the other side are no different. They want to dictate how people spend their money and how they behave in various other parts of their lives. Since people refuse to spend money for certain things voluntarily, these politicians want to force the money from their pockets and spend it for them. These politicians want to force people to hire who they want hired and to conduct business as they prefer. Most Democrats and progressives cheer for this sort of control. It’s easy, though, for Republicans and conservatives to rail against such attempts at control.

Neither side of this debate likes to admit that control is the core issue. Each says it’s simply that its way is the right one. They’re united in the belief that people can’t be left alone to make their own decisions. They differ merely on what “the people” should be forced to do. Despite their rhetoric, they don’t believe in individual freedom.

The core political question is never, “Will this work?” The right question is always, “Who has the right to decide this?” Your answer to that will tell me whether you believe in individual freedom or if you think you have the right to rule instead.

When it comes to civil freedom, the world can be divided into two groups. One group believes that individuals have the moral right to control their own lives. The other group believes that they have the right and responsibility to control everyone else.

Those among the second group believe they have the answers. They’re not tyrants, at least in their own minds. They’re just right. And since they’ve been taught that the majority have a right to control everyone — it’s “the will of the people” expressed through democracy — they go to great lengths to find enough people to vote for their “enlightened” proposals — so the world can finally be remade in their own image.

Roy Moore is one of those people. So is Donald Trump. But so is Hillary Clinton. So is Barrack Obama. So is every tinhorn would-be dictator who gets himself elected as a president, governor, congressman, legislator, mayor or city councilman.

They all pat themselves on the back. They all think they’re controlling others for “the right reasons.” But they’re all bullies who are willing to use the power of men with guns to dictate to their neighbors — and to throw those neighbors into jail or take their property if they refuse to obey.

Roy Moore is a tyrant. He’s a controlling bully. That’s true.

But your favorite politician is a controlling bully, too. They all are, even if they haven’t accepted the truth of what they’re doing.

I can understand this very well because I started out in life wanting to be president. I was convinced I would be a great leader. I was convinced I was smart enough to make the right decisions and lead people to becoming what they needed to be.

I didn’t have bad intentions. I just thought I knew better.

I now realize that we all feel this way on some level. Some people become conscious that they don’t know better — or at least that they have no right to force others to obey them — but most never get that far. Most believe they’re so right that their opinions should be made law — and that everyone else should be forced to obey those opinions.

So criticize Moore all you want. I do. (And I’ve written about him in the past.) But examine your own beliefs. Do you want to use the power of government to control people? To force them to behave morally as you prefer? To force them to spend money on things you think the money should be spent on? To force them to structure the world around them as you think it should be?

If you’ve been raised to worship the secular state and to worship its sacramental symbols, you probably do want to do those things — and you think it’s the responsible and moral thing to do.

You are wrong. You have no right to control others. Neither do I.

Roy Moore is a controlling monster, but if you want to elect people who agree with your particular views to rule instead, you’re just substituting your own monsters for the ones you don’t like. The moral thing is to reject all coercion, not to replace one monster with another.

Don’t just reject Roy Moore. Reject the controlling system that makes people like him possible.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts