Lewdness in Politics? Say It Isn’t So!

Original article published by Keith Stanglin with Austin Graduate School of Theology's Christian Studies blog here.

Donald Trump’s lewd and outrageous comments from 2005, released just before the second presidential debate, have sparked widespread condemnation as well as frequent media commentary on how to protect our children from such topics.

Watching the evening news and presidential debates used to be a way to introduce children to what’s going on the world. In junior high English class we were assigned to watch the NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw and turn in our own summaries the next day. Today, adults are not so sure. One television morning show host suggested that she wouldn’t want kids under 18 to view the debate.

This debate season has truly been uninspiring, and the desire to protect children from the insults, lies, and sexual subject matter is commendable. But this is not the first time that sexually suggestive content has been a part of the news and media cycle. As a young teenager in 1991, I recall seeing extensive coverage of Anita Hill’s testimony alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas. A colleague of mine recalls 1998—during the Monica Lewinsky scandal—as the year that he had to stop watching the news with his young children. I would run out of space here if I began naming politicians who have been caught up in sex scandals that were covered by the news media. That a politician would be involved in something of this nature, and that the media would share all the gory details, disturbing as it is, is not a new phenomenon.

I do see at least three differences, though, this time around:

1) With Bill Clinton and most others, but always after they have been caught, there has generally been a thin veneer of penitence. You know the drill: the news conference, usually with the wife standing by his side, and the public apology to family, friends, and constituents. Some resign, but others press forward, relying on the forgiveness of the American people.

On the contrary, Trump is bold and unapologetic. Of course, none of this behavior is new for Trump. Anyone who has bothered to learn about Trump was already aware of his sexual libertinism and crass speech. That supporters would suddenly pull out now is puzzling. Rather, what is consistent about Trump is also what separates him from politics as we once knew it—namely, his unveiled vice. No apology necessary. His ability to get away with his proud lack of virtue and still be supported by millions of Americans somewhat reflects the “post-Christian” nature of our society, something I have written about here.

2) Given that this is not the first time we have seen sexual vice among presidential candidates, it is interesting how partisan the condemnations seem to be. Bill Clinton, before he became president, was already involved in sex scandals as governor of Arkansas. While in office, even if the relationship was “consensual,” Clinton, the most powerful man in the country, took sexual advantage of a powerless, 22-year-old intern, though he claimed a passive role and, to Lewinsky’s mind, blamed her. Yet, for various reasons, the public forgave the president, whereas Lewinsky was the one mercilessly lampooned by the culture.

I’m not sure it helps Trump’s case to raise Bill Clinton’s scandals. He seems to hope it will deflect criticism and perhaps show that, if Clinton is acceptable, then he should be, too. Some may fall for it, though it only goes to show how inappropriate both of them are. But it is interesting that the most vocal opponents of Trump frequently give Clinton and other politicians a pass. However disgusting Trump’s comments are, it has not (yet) been proved that he acted on them, though he is condemned more harshly than a president who has so acted. The righteous indignation is not quite evenly spread.

3) The reactions point more generally to a widespread irony (or, better, hypocrisy) within our society. That our society is hyper-sexualized is a given. This hyper-sexualization of society, though, is driven in large part by the media, both mainstream and social. Sexual gratification is the order of the day, and it has become a normal part of late-modern life in the West.

So, for example, the evening news stories that report on these things, including the commentators who wring their hands over the state of things and wonder whether children should watch, are brought to you every night by competing advertisements between Viagra and Cialis. Talk about your civic cultural literacy!

Lewd talk and sexual images, as well as those who peddle them, are mainstream. For instance, Howard Stern, once a shock jock who made a living and became famous for, among other things, treating women as mere objects for sexual stimulus, was, for four years, mainstreamed into culture as one of the celebrity judges on NBC’s family show “America’s Got Talent.” Stern, whose comments on most topics make Trump’s look harmless, went straight from judging naked female bodies in his studio to judging women and children on stage, and no one seemed to notice or care.

It was also NBC that featured Trump as the star—and apparent role model—on “The Apprentice.” One can understand the calls for NBC to fire their Today Show host, Billy Bush, for his acquiescence to Trump’s comments when they both worked for NBC. But NBC also comes off as a little sanctimonious in the process. They, like most other media, employ people to produce some of the most vapid and sexually degrading content in American culture, but then they become morally serious when an employee specifically hired to trade in the banal did not exhibit the moral courage to stand up to one of NBC’s prime-time stars.

Our society tolerates—no, celebrates—sexual libertinism in a manner heretofore unseen in global history, pace pre-Vesuvius Pompeii. Ours is a culture of polyamory: sex with whomever you please, whenever and wherever you please, with the ambiguous concept of consent being the one limit.

The same culture and media that deride sexual self-control and chastity and inundate the male public with an endless barrage of lewd speech and sexual images, from the merely tantalizing to the outright explicit, somehow also expect these same males never to engage in the talk, never to look too long at the images, or never to act out on the desires that the culture and media stimulated. This is certainly not about blaming the victim, or, for that matter, even a single perpetrator. It is much bigger than any one person or incident caught on tape. It is the result of a very long process of de-Christianization that we as a culture have chosen for ourselves. What our culture and media loathe is the very thing that they helped create. Contrary to what many have said, we in fact do have the presidential candidates that we deserve.

The first lady and others are right to condemn the kind of speech we have heard from Trump and the actions that it describes. Yes, a national conversation needs to happen. But the conversation that needs to take place is one that the mainstream cultural leaders have shown themselves not willing—or perhaps not able—to have.

After all, the appeal to the dignity of all humans in general and of women in particular, the exhortation to sexual self-control, the condemnation of extra-marital sexual relations and of abuse of power are all part of the Christian worldview that has been rejected by the same cultural elites calling for Trump’s head. We see moral outrage directed against a set of symptoms, but an outrage that refuses to address the deep, long-term factors that have caused the symptoms. As long as the society lacks the moral foundation and courage to take the conversation beyond the superficial, the cure will continue to elude.

Original article published by Keith Stanglin with Austin Graduate School of Theology's Christian Studies blog here.