Sex and the Presidency

No, not the way you were thinking -- we know way too much about that already. I'm talking about this commentary by Steve Waldman on Obama's remarks about sexuality in the last debate.

Here's why it's important. Obama showed himself to have a culturally conservative streak. The classic conservative wrap on liberalism is that sexual permissiveness led to numerous social problems including teen pregnancy and abortion. Obama declared, in effect, that he agreed with that critique. "Cavalier" sex, he said, cost society.

Neither Obama nor Waldman ask the next question: given that there's pretty much a consensus that it's not the government's role to be interfering in private decisions (some controversy still remains, to be sure -- mostly on the part of the "culture warriors" at the fringe of the right wing who think Uncle Sam should be part of your bedroom furniture), where do we find the answer? (I'm not disputing the validity of the remarks in a presidential debate: presidents are among those whom we take as role models and we should know what they think about issues like this.)

Full disclosure: I'm not one to engage in casual, uninvolved sex. As far as I'm concerned, that's called "masturbation," whether you're doing it alone or not. But I have a feeling that those who do are far fewer than some would like us to believe. I think most people are engaging in sex as a means of connection and have at the very least a certain amount of liking and affection for their partners. I don't understand the Larry Craigs of the world, but I think they are really few and far between.

That said, it seems to me that the whole issue really does work its way down to the personal level: it's something that parents, as Waldman points out, have to instill in their children. I was raised with some real American values, including respect for others. From that, it seems to me, flows the answer to the "cavalier" sex question: yes, people have sex because it's fun, but there's a lot more involved and I wonder how many people really work at demonstrating to their children that others need to be treated with consideration -- not just being polite, but a deep-down, fundamental courtesy that has as its basis respect and empathy.

I think Obama is almost there. He does demonstrate a culturally conservative streak, but it's a far cry from that of Donald Wildmon or James Dobson: I don't think Obama is at all enthusiastic about the idea of telling me how to live my life and hauling in the government to enforce it. (And, if the truth be known, I differ with him markedly on some of those issues.)

Commenter Mikkel hits the nail on the head:

I am representative of a lot of my generation who is socially conservative in that we think that "traditional values" are appropriate for most people, but also socially liberal in that we believe the prime goal is for people to live in a way that is healthiest for them even if it is different. I think that the stereotypical liberal/conservative dichotomy does a disservice by focusing on the acts instead of valuing moral development (either religious or not) and self respect. I also wonder how much of a difference there really is between the two sides or whether it's just political caricature.

Note: Reading this over, it occurs to me that Mikkel is even more on the mark than I had thought at first: there's a lot more variation in the way people are put together than is allowed for in something as mindless as "traditional" morality as espoused by the Dobson Gang. If the role of society is to work for the benefit of all of its members, we have to make allowance for that.