A better way
Social conservatives will soon tire of liberals' snickering about the latest true confessions of philandering GOP would-be presidential candidates. I think the larger problem for the conservative faithful is that they've gleefully led a divisive culture war in recent decades, condemning media and universities for warping the values of the mainstream. So I don't think they convince others when they then blame innate human weakness for their own foibles; they'd been arguing that their way is better and healthier. If they're going to maintain that position, it would be more credible if they focused less on cultural street fights and moralizing on Fox News, which then leads to a loss of credibility when "life happens."
Agreed that hypocrisy is hypocrisy. However, your alternative is that we should trumpet the wonderfulness of cheating on your spouse, so that when "life happens" we can just shrug our shoulders? The "other way" IS better and healthier. The fact that these things are labeled "scandal" only proves that point!
We all know that certain things are wrong, and yet sometimes (not all the time, and not all people), we do them. Yes, that IS being human. And it is more sad when it's someone who has AT LEAST had the balls to stand up and say that that behavior is wrong.
Your wording is very inflammatory, Rob. There is nothing gleeful about pointing out the failures of the culture. If it's divisive, so be it. It's also true. The media and universities HAVE warped values. The fact that people continue to falter makes that not one whit less true.
And how on earth would NOT speaking out about cultural issues make conservatives more "credible," as your last sentence indicates? What you are saying is, if you hold to a certain set of values, keep your mouth shut. Again, this is pretty big cliff of logic you just jumped off--because some people mess up, others who agree with their opinions should not express them. Huh?
Credible means Believable. I think Rob is saying that those who would propound an arduous moral code will find their message will have greater reception when it is embodied by their actions, not merely by empty preaching. Echoes of Mt 7:3-5 etc.
There need not be anything gleeful about pronouncing judgment on society's ills. One might imagine that it could be mournful, pensive, or constructive.
A few weeks ago, you castigated me, Diane, for calling out one our nation's collective ills. My tone was too strident, the subjects of my scorn too tender, the matter in question too fraught with conflicting opinions. Pace your view, I should have moderated my tone, instead of calling a spade a spade.
So which is it? Should we rail against injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy and inhumanity a la an Old Testament prophet, or conduct civil discourse because after all there are some who take things like whether or not it is seemly to heal on the Sabbath differently from others...
Of course those who propound "an arduous moral code" (and I find it interesting that you seem to be depicting marital faithfulness as somehow a big challenge there -- "arduous")... anyway of course those who speak for that should follow up with actions. That's kind of a "duh," and was my point in acknowledging that hypocrisy=hypocrisy.
However, that is not all Rob was saying. He was taking somewhat snide swipes at anyone who would "moralize" on Fox News or express a moral opinion on something. Do you not understand my point; that it seems the Left would like one person's moral failure to mean that nobody speaks out against moral failures?
Further, quantifying other people's opinions as "railing" while classifying your own opinions as "civil discourse" is cheating... and you'll have to refresh my memory as to the exchange to which you are referring, because I do not recall what you are talking about.