Alex Morse Isn’t A Democrat; Alex Morse Is the Democratic Party

Printed from:

Pity Alex Morse. In his public statements since it became known that as mayor of Holyoke and a University of Massachusetts Amherst lecturer he has initiated sexual hookups with male college students, you can sense bewilderment.

At some level, the left-Democratic candidate for Congress seems to be thinking, don’t my fellow activists understand what’s at stake here?

Aren’t selfish sexual encounters what we’re all about?

“I want my freedom, and I want you to have yours, too,” Morse said in one written statement, directed at “the many members of the queer community.”

He’s got a point, and it goes beyond sexual orientation. The Democratic Party is the country’s major political movement dedicated to the proposition that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that the foremost among these is to have sex with anyone 18 or older who can give you a meaningful yes, whenever you want and with no strings attached.

The only questions are how to make it available on the front end, and how to get rid of any consequences on the back end.

The Democratic Party makes constituents two core offers:  We’ll give you money, and we’ll give you sex.

What the Democratic Party presents as freedoms — the right to have an abortion, the right to have the government pay for an abortion, the right to have the government pay for contraception, the right to have the government force a group of nuns to pay for someone else’s contraception, the right to offer sex for money, the right to have public schools distribute condoms and contraceptive pills to junior high students, the right to make sixth-graders learn how to perform dangerous sex acts, the right to not hear anybody criticize anybody else’s decisions about sex – are really all about enabling.

The undirected, unrestrained, unpurposed, self-centered sexual encounter is not, in the modern Democratic Party view, an unfortunate byproduct of fallen human nature; instead, it’s the pinnacle of human experience.

This is why left-wingers struggle so much with creating a moral framework around sex. Having ditched the old one – which boils down to lifelong fidelity and children – they have a lot of catchup work to do.

They generally agree that force is not acceptable. Unequal power is also suspect now, and perhaps unacceptable – unless, perhaps, the weaker party continues to find the arrangement acceptable.

What about undue influence? It gets into a grayer area. Using your achievements or assets to attract someone else is a basic form of human interaction. But what if the person initially attracted is later repelled?

Morse says he has “never, in my entire life, had a non-consensual sexual encounter with anyone,” has “never used my position of power as Mayor and UMass lecturer for romantic or sexual gain,” has “never used my power in a problematic way.”

O.K., let’s say that’s true.

Here are a few questions for you, Mr. Morse:

How many men of whatever age that you’ve encountered have left you better off than before they met you?

How many are worse off because they met you?

How many wish they never met you?

How many of those “men” were a lot younger than you are? (The College Democrats say some of them were 18. You haven’t so far denied it.)

To be sure, there’s nothing illegal in Massachusetts about all this. But is this behavior moral? I mean:  The behavior you admit to – the stuff we don’t need a UMass investigation to determine.

You say an investigation would clear you “of any unethical conduct.”


You say you are “sorry” … “that some students felt uncomfortable with interactions they had with me.”

So is that an apology? Or does it mean that you regret that some of these college kids felt bad afterwards, through no fault of your own?

Because there couldn’t be any fault of your own, right?

Because there’s nothing wrong with serial sexual encounters. It’s the Democratic way.

And besides, as you say:

“I am also mindful of the fact that there are people holding onto power today who themselves have acted in dishonorable ways in their personal lives.”

Perhaps that’s what your case for continuing your pursuit of Congress boils down to:

If they can do it, why can’t I?

Just one more thing:  Remind me what the liberals call going into politics?

“Public service”?