wikimedia commons New Gingrich helped to translate Christian moral principles into a political strategy to maintain dominance of a particular form of conservative thought espoused by Republicans who called themselves the Moral Majority

President George Bush and his predecessors Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. were put in power and kept in control by the religious right who also called themselves the moral majority. Newt Gingrich led the political charge and changes. The opposition, the Democrats, was painted as the party that didn’t represent true family values, and values were important in making political decisions. Republicans were portrayed as more religious, more correct and more moral than other people. All of this presumed they were better at managing government. What did this attitude create? Those who portrayed themselves as morally right believed it was morally right to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a bad man. Those who were morally right excused torture and lies about weapons of mass destruction. In the meantime, great division was created between Republicans and Democrats as the latter was portrayed as not as moral and not having good values. The moral majority took control of the Republican Party. Nelson Rockefeller, a strong Republican stalwart of the 1960’s, and Republican Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon had ideas that seemed no longer represented by Republican thought or ambitions. Public political events, even in Hawaii, became infused with faith and were preceded by prayers and hymn singing. Religion came to dominate political discourse, infusing specific religious morality into government. Those who opposed the party of God and guns and morality were depicted as unpatriotic. Those nations that questioned the political direction of that moral majority became the target of jokes, as the French were, when French fries were changed to Freedom fries. It was a small, but significant step, but gradually it broke down important international alliances which are important when the world faces major disasters. When Republican leaders, like Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, maintained theirs the most moral opinion, this led to rejecting beliefs and opinions outside that inner circle, especially outside the country. When international decisions were made, and the United States presented itself as having the moral corner, the country lost credibility with other nations, including U.S. friends. Those among the most moral, and the most outspoken, about both national and international decisions have frequently been thosemost hypocritical in their personal lives. What they advocate for others, they haven’t practiced themselves. Most of that has been in their sexual lives, but it was the moral banner that included sexual purity they held before the world. They have fallen from grace and moral authority, leaving a lack of real leadership, and that's too bad. Today Governor Mark Sanford admitted he had committed adultery. Just days ago Senator John Ensign made a similar admission. John Edwards, Democratic contender for the Presidency, portrayed himself as a faithful, family man, all while he was conducting an affair with a campaign worker. Ensign and Sanford were being considered as potential contenders for the Republican nomination for President in 2012. These are the kind of men who are presented as having moral values, but whose hypocrisy meant they preached one thing and practiced another, which is a bad example for values folks. Those who consider values of fidelity and truth to be important are hurt. Those who want their children to see leaders setting good examples for behavior are also victims because children who see adults as hypocrites are less willing to listen to their advice. And that’s what’s really important, and certainly not the sexual issues, which are strictly between those personally involved. Sexual misconduct in and of itself may be the business of oneself and one’s family, but it becomes more than that when the miscreant helps make laws that restricts others on a national or international scale. It becomes important when those who say they are operating from moral principles, instead use public funds for private affairs, all while they are making decisions that affect the financial welfare of the several states. And the welfare of those states impacts the United States which in turn can bring consequences to others around the world. Sexual hypocrisy hurts everyone simply because of its hypocrisy, not because of sex. It needs to be revealed so people understand leaders shouldn’t make or uphold rules they themselves will not obey. If the United States is to set an example of good government, the hypocrisy of its leaders should not stand nor should the people uphold themselves as more moral than their leaders whom they placed on pedestals from which they fall.