If there's something to be said about Tiger Woods - and count me among those who think most of what's happened speaks for itself just fine without my help - perhaps the most indicative of the moment we're in is how reaction to his troubles is a reminder of the conservative crackup, particularly when it comes to the "values agenda."
For a long time, conservative moralism was one of the right's most successful weapons; agree or disagree with their "traditional morals" viewpoint, one had to admit that complaints of loose morality, enshrinement of poor values, and our general cultural interest in salaciousness did make a point, one that was hard to beat back.
And it's not, as some suggest, simply the steady drumbeat of conservative mess-ups that has undermined the morality play as much as the fact that the shattering of conservative unity has revealed that on the right, as much or more than on the left, there's no firm agreement on just what the "morals" are supposed to be, or when "bad morals" utterly disqualify someone from any defense of decency.
That muddle has been especially true in the days since Tiger Woods crashed his car outside his house, and a world of sneak around infidelities has been revealed. The question isn't who's trying to excuse Woods' behavior - since almost no one is trying to call it acceptable or okay - but the struggle to explain exactly what's wrong, and why, and what it's supposed to mean in a cultural context. And it's telling, I think, that just as no one wants to defend what Woods has done, over the years, few seem to be able to explain exactly why these public revelations should have an impact on his career in golf.
And the dirtiest secret on the morality front is... that's probably because they won't, or shouldn't.
Recent Comments