Who Defines Morality?
I recently read in a national newspaper that our illustrious governor is (again) badmouthing her constituents. She said abortion rights advocates in our state “showed they are both immoral and incompetent.”
Her statement was uttered in connection with Secretary of State John Thurston’s recent rejection of petitions seeking to get an abortion access measure on the ballot for the fall election. Thurston claims Arkansans for Limited Government, the group spearheading the petition drive, failed to submit all the appropriate paperwork required.
Sponsors of the petition claim they have followed the rules to the letter. The Secretary of State claims otherwise. Either the petitioners overlooked something, or Thurston (or people connected to his office) are moving the goalposts. Having seen neither the rules, nor the documents submitted, I cannot say.
What I do know is it’s unprofessional for an elected official to make broad, unflattering statements about a wide swath of her constituency, and most decidedly to declare these citizens immoral, as if the elected official, herself, has a lock on morality.
Unprofessional. Unpleasant. Uncalled for.
Hateful.
These petitioners are well within their rights in seeking to get an issue on the ballot. It’s the way things are done in a democracy.
Those who signed the petition merely seek to let a majority of Arkansas voters decide the abortion issue, rather than a roomful of legislators. I don’t think applying one’s signature to a document that favors a democratic decision over a dictatorial one makes the signer immoral.
Or maybe Sanders was just talking about the leaders of the petition drive — whom she, perhaps, considers rabble rousers intent on getting the populous all up in arms and agitated. If Sanders does consider this kind of behavior immoral, I suspect she might need an attitude adjustment regarding the January 6th mob in Washington—but I’m just guessing.
While I am not the arbiter of what is or isn’t moral any more than Sanders, it sure feels to me that an elected official declaring her constituents immoral is unethical. She is our governor, and as such, ought to treat all of us with respect. She is a public servant. And we are the public: Democrat, Republican, Pro-choice, Right-to-Life, male, female, non-binary, trans, married, single. Those who are parents, and those who are childless—whether by choice or circumstance. Citizens of all colors and all ideologies. Arkansans of all religions—or none. All deserve to be treated with dignity by the head of our state government.
I am an Arkansas citizen. I worked in Arkansas public schools for a decade before my retirement. I pay Arkansas taxes—which I have always supported at the polls. (Although, given some of our governor’s expenditures, I might now think twice about my heretofore unwavering support of taxes.)
I write a column for an Arkansas newspaper. I shop local whenever possible, rather than send my money out of state online. In short, I support Arkansas. Yet I can easily feel excluded from rational public debate—publicly dismissed, as it were—when my opinions don’t align with the governor’s.
If our state government is going to be in the business of deciding whose opinions matter and whose don’t, whose actions are moral or immoral, we’re all in trouble. Dictators can change their minds at the drop of a hat, and the definition of “moral” could wind up being very narrow—excluding anyone with a penchant for independent thought.