Sarah Palin: Letterman’s Wrong Cascading Upon Waves of Silence

Sometimes remarks are indecent no matter what one’s ideological leanings might be.  For instance, no matter what I think about a person’s political views, it would woefully and utterly inappropriate on moral grounds for me to intone, however, jokingly: “You need a good raping in order to put some sense in your head”.  There is nothing that could render that utterance an acceptable joke.  Conservatives need to understand the moral principle here.  Liberals need to understand the moral principle here. 

As we all know, David Letterman joked that baseball slugger Alex Rodriguez “knocked up” Sarah Palin’s daughter during a game at Yankee Stadium.  Two things are worth nothing here.  One is that fact that Letterman himself could have uttered such a tasteless remark.  The other is that such a tasteless remark could have been applauded by the audience.  Together, these two facts reveal a horrendous lack of basic moral decency on the part of both Letterman and his audience.  For reasons that I shall shortly make clear, owing to the deafening silence of feminist groups like NOW my respect for them has entirely evaporated.

Had Letterman’s remarks been about Sarah Palin herself instead of Palin’s daughter, they would still have been crass and tasteless.  But one could argue with some plausibility, perhaps, that being the object of such derisive remarks is the price of being a political figure.  However, there is nothing whatsoever that will excuse Letterman’s making such a horrendous set of remarks about Palin’s daughter. 

We all recall the story of Don Imus, who referred to black women on the women’s basketball team of Rutgers University as “nappy-headed hos”.  And as we all know, Imus lost his job over that despicable remark.

What Letterman said about Palin’s daughter was equally despicable; though, to be sure, the factor of race is absent here.  And just as Imus lost his radio position, Letterman should also lose his position as host of the late night talk show.  If an apology of Imus did not suffice for him to maintain his job, then an apology from Letterman should not suffice.  It was not sufficient for Imus to display deep, deep contrition and to say that he learnt his lesson.  Likewise, it should not be sufficient for Letterman to display contrition and to say that he learnt his lesson.

Part of what it means to have moral principles is to hold everyone equally accountable for the exact same moral behavior.  Murder is wrong; and it is wrong whether it is committed by my child or the neighbor’s child or the stranger’s child. 

Imus was roundly and relentlessly criticized for displaying a deeply inexcusable moral insensibility to black women.  Letterman displayed a deeply inexcusable moral insensibility to all women.  This last observation brings me to NOW.

A flagrant disrespect for women is wrong no matter who displays that disrespect.  I grasp all too that Sarah Palin is not the darling of feminists groups—NOW, in particular.  This, however, should be utterly irrelevant to the considerable ire that they should have over Letterman’s remarks regarding Palin’s daughter.  Insofar as NOW is willing to overlook Letterman’s despicable remarks because, after all, he is indeed a darling of Liberals, then NOW thereby loses my respect. 

I understand as much as anyone the inclination that we have to want to excuse a mistake committed by one of our own against those whom we reject.  This, though, invariably requires that one can point to what at least appears to be a substantive moral difference.  Alas, from the standpoint of purely despicable remarks, there is no substantive moral difference between what Imus said what Letterman said. 

There is no better indication of what the moral character of persons is really like than the moral wrongs that they commit precisely when they can easily get away with committing those wrongs.  Thus, we know something quite important about a man who simply does not refer to women as “bitches”, though he finds himself upon occasion around guys who unthinkingly do so. 

Make no mistake about it: David Letterman knew that his audience would delight in his tasteless remark about Sarah Palin’s daughter.  And this truth points to a very, very deep character flaw on Letterman’s part.  In turn, the fact that NOW is ignoring this egregious character flaw on the part of Letterman points to an equally deep moral flaw on the part of NOW’s constituents.

As Dr. Laura Schlessinger observed in her opening monologue during the first hour: the David Letterman audience should have stood up and walked out.  Why?  Because regardless of our differences in political leanings “we should all be able to agree that it is not funny to attack somebody else’s kid”. Listen Here: dl-courage.

Of course, out of a concern not to be seen as being on the wrong side because they agree with her, many people will disagree with Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s remarks just because the remarks come from her.  Alas, Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s very point is that it is precisely this attitude that is one of the factors that explain an absence of courage in society.  Just as the wrong of murder has nothing whatsoever to do with political leanings, it is equally true that the wrong of attacking someone’s child has nothing whatsoever to do with political leaning.  But one would not know that from either David Letterman’s despicable remarks about Palin’s daughter or the reaction of the audience to his despicable remarks. 

Evil cascades along riding the waves of our silence.