In a discussion on Buck Sexton's radio program of Monday 2/21/2017, the topic of the Left's obsession with discrediting President Trump came up in a phone call concerning the vulgar remarks Trump made years ago about being sexually aggressive with women. The point was rightly made by Sexton that the Left's outrage was selective when one considers the very serious allegations against Bill Clinton of actual rape which, according to Sexton, have never been publicly rebuked! I thought about this and also did not recall any Bill Clinton public repudiation of the charge of rape. So, I checked around a little, thinking that if any denial by Bill Clinton was made it would show up pretty fast in a Google search. I didn't find anything. Though I found all kinds of material about the accusations and the responses from Clinton's camp, the only denials mentioned connected to Bill Clinton were made through his lawyers, not by the former President himself.
During the campaign debates the subject of Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct reemerged as a response to the Left declaring Trump a misogynist because of the crude comments he made years ago. The point driven home by Trump then and since is that the Left's excoriation of him is grossly unfair considering how they treated allegations of actual rape, not simply crude words someone said, when Bill Clinton was a candidate and as President. It is safe to state that the liberal media of the 1990's went full out 'blame the victim' when Billy boy's transgressions were revealed.
Such selective outrage gives rise to the charge of hypocrisy on the part of the Left. But another point made by Sexton is that this is an attempt by the Left to claim “the moral high ground” against President Trump. By attempting to claim superior morality, the Left is stating that, as far as they are concerned, facts do not matter when meting out moral judgment. This is evident because if the two President's behaviors are compared, on a level ethical playing field, Clinton's actual rape and sexual assault allegations, combined with his proven adultery in the White House are of a far more serious and weighty immoral nature than the offhand comments of someone who wasn't even a candidate when the comments were made!
This reveals liberal secular education's influence for many decades in our land. It fits the liberal, secular teaching of moral relativism in our public education system, which has permeated education as a philosophy of teaching at all grade levels and into the state university systems across the country. Whether we believe it or not, liberal education has produced a couple of generations of children who are now adults educated with the philosophy of moral relativism, and the third such generation is emerging now. A key feature of moral relativism is the idea that ethics are “situational” in nature. That is, ethical behavior is determined by the situation rather than by moral principles. Virtually any kind of behavior can be considered morally good, or ethical, according to the situation at hand. In this situation, the Left's condemnation of President Trump is considered a moral imperative even if he is not deserving of such condemnation. Thus, for the liberal mindset, right and wrong are interchangeable concepts as long as they advance the Left's agenda.
To illustrate the idea of situational ethics, examine the book “Situation Ethics: The New Morality” by Joseph Fletcher. Though he did not invent the idea, he 'codifies' it nicely. In chapter 7, Fletcher puts forth the concept that the ends do justify the means. This is considered ethical by Fletcher because, he reasons, nothing else can justify the means other than to accomplish a particular end. One example Fletcher cites enlightens us as to just what he means. “It is related in Soviet Russia how Nikolai Lenin once tired of being told by Tolstoyan idealists that his willingness to use force, in foreign and civil wars, proved that he had no ethics, that since violence is evil (not 'can' be but is), and since his principles allow him to use it, he therefore must believe that the end justifies the means. He finally rounded on them: 'If the end does not justify the means, then in the name of sanity and justice,what does?' To this question he never got an answer...' ” To reiterate the comment, Lenin believed he was morally justified even to the extent of using violence and murder to further his political ends! The liberal who uses selective outrage seems to be following the same road of action and moral justification that a tyrant like Lenin followed. In fact, there are recent examples of the Left's new protester culture promoting violence as the moral reaction to the election of President Trump.
I have an answer for Lenin's question, and Fletcher's question as well. The answer is that there are some means which are not ethical no matter the end. Therefore, there are SOME ENDS which are inherently immoral. I suggest that the liberal vision of a socialistic utopia is an immoral goal which is only sincerely pursued with unethical means. It should be roundly rejected by the nation if we are going to break free of the bonds of liberalism and emerge with the liberty that America was created to establish and uphold.