Kid Rock, Conservatism and Controversy

What kind of blog would this be if we didn't address the Kid Rock controversy. Again I'll point you to:
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy � A Message for the Uptight

I agree with her on two main issues. All things considered, this is a pretty dumb controversy. Also, you can curse and be a conservative. That said, here I go...

One of the things that Liberals say they believe in, but actually don't, is that people can change. Conservatives are often called hard-hearted because we are willing to judge people. We see evil and call it such. We are not shy about acting against it either. On the other hand, we get all excited when evil is defeated. That is the point of judging anyway -- identify the enemy in order to defeat it. People are evil to the extent that they do evil. If they stop doing evil, they stop being evil. Our great delight is in those people, once stupid and/or evil, who have grown in wisdom and become good. Their goodness is their great honor.

So what about Kid Rock? He was most surely stupid and probably evil. He may no longer be either. I don't really know, but some people seem to think that he has reformed (read the Michelle's comments). He supports Bush and the troops and that is a start to be sure. Does he still encourage the disgusting and damaging behavior like he used to do? That is the question. If he does not, then we can make the argument that he has reformed and embrace him. If he does then we should not.

Let me be clear about what I mean. I practice no religion, but I am deeply moral. I am in no way a part of the "Religious Right," but I am a Conservative. I curse like a sailor (well, like the Coast Guard, anyway) and I have no problem with foul language in the music. My problem is that Kid Rock does, in fact, encourage disgusting, dangerous and yes, I'll call it evil, behavior. This should not be condoned by anyone -- tolerated perhaps, but not condoned. It makes no sense at all to give this a stamp of approval by inviting him to play at an official function.

However, as I said, I also believe that a man can change. I am very willing, indeed happy, to encourage this change. Are we not all called in our moral duty to help our fellow man? I say that conservatism is a philosophy of compassion. It is this compassion which moves us both to condemn and forgive. You can not have the latter without the former. If it is true that Kid Rock is trying to reform his ways, we must encourage that.

How do we know if he is reforming? That is simple enough. Does he openly reject his past wrongs? When he does, we will know for sure. Now, the tough part is deciding whether to embrace him without an explicit rejection of his former self. That is up to each of us and that is the debate we should be having.

I know that it is hard work to reform one's ways; it can take years. I sympathize with those people who are trying to work it out for themselves. They are bound to screw it up along the way. I do not condemn them for that. I condemn people who refuse to try.

The question is not one of condemnation, though. It is whether it is appropriate to have him on the official program. Personally, I want to see some clear indication that Kid Rock is at odds with his old lyrics and habits. Without that, I would not invite him to perform at any official party. I would, though, invite him to the parties and show my support in other ways. Bush seems to be comfortable with a softer approach. If Bush thinks that Kid Rock is trying to become a better person, then that is a fair position. Michelle Malkin disagrees. I'll wager, though, that if Kid Rock did speak out against his own immorality, she would embrace him (probably not literally).