To The Fringe And Beyond

True believers — far right or left — are antithetical to the political process, governance and the greater good

Let me quote from a very recent New York Times editorial regarding the Republican convention platform:
This majority [of ideologues] has triumphed in securing retrograde positions that include making no exceptions for rape or women’s health in cases of abortion; requiring the Bible to be taught in public high schools; selling coal as a “clean” energy source; demanding a return of federal lands to the states; insisting that legislators use religion as a guide in lawmaking; appointing “family values” judges; barring female soldiers from combat; and rejecting the need for stronger gun controls — despite the mass shootings afflicting the nation every week.

So much for separation of church and state, civil rights for all citizens, women’s right to choose their health care. “Clean” coal — unlike climate change — is, of course, non-existent. Family values are not actually defined by a conservative agenda that doesn’t recognize the diversity of what family means. But let’s note that a platform created by those at the far edges of the Republican party isn’t representative of all who are in it, and that those of sounder mind have chosen not to attend. But there is still much to fear in any attempt to decide for a diverse population what narrow criteria should be imposed by zealots, the true believers.

Just about everything recommended in a study initiated by party leadership after the loss in 2012 has not only been ignored but taken further in the opposite direction. The report emphasized creating a “big tent” open to all, rather than conservatives only speaking to others who think exactly the same way about the same issues. The 2016 platform narrows even more the conversation and tent size while attempting to return to the very beginning of the twentieth century, if not earlier.

This is why true believers — far right or left — are antithetical to the political process, governance and the greater good. Ideological purity cannot solve anything in a democracy because extreme positions do not have popular support. The messenger cluelessly believes hearing the message will sell the brand of politics being offered, and when this doesn’t happen, the true believer simply assumes the message isn’t getting through and is being blocked by those who oppose the wisdom being given. It’s not too long before hatred for those who are perceived to be responsible for this wells up and creates furious intolerance toward anyone who does not agree. Extremism begets greater extremism.

Ironically, the nominee of the party, who is a sociopath with pronounced narcissist personality disorder, and who doesn’t perceive a problem with lying, exaggeration and inconsistency, does not actually care about conservative ideology. The divisions within the party have become profound. His supporters don’t actually believe he can deliver on the improbable assertions he makes, but also don’t seem to care. Those who are traditional conservatives are horrified that he is representing the party. Moderates who are still Republicans and the many more who are independents are equally horrified and would prefer his opponent win. And the purists are trying to move the party ever further right as if insufficient ideological purity is what is keeping it from winning the presidency.

The one theme common among all of them is that many of the changes in their country are frightening and cause anxiety and anger. They want to “take their country back,” as if its past was everything we needed and now it’s being ruined by people who are not like them. As an historian by training, if not profession, I don’t perceive the mythical past glory they claim to want. Though a country with many good qualities, it also has a past and present riddled with very negative ones as well. The phrase “make America great again” should really be “make America great…finally.”

There’s a reason I don’t vote for Republicans. There are not many who meet my criteria, and they are outnumbered by increasing quantities of unhinged, fact-free, ideological zealots who would harm the greater good in their misguided goal of saving it. The platform described in the first paragraph is proof. The greatest challenge for intelligence is dealing with unintelligence. Those opposed to moderation and compromise cannot be trusted to govern with common sense and wisdom. Trust, of course, has itself become a topic of distortion and hyperbolic nonsense.

The nominee for the Republican party is, by every pragmatic assessment, a monument to being untrustworthy. His opponent has been accused of being the same despite never being found guilty of having done what she is accused of…with the singular exception of the infamous email server — and that is an issue of dubious merit. The list of reasons for her choice of private server is not without merit. She could have been more direct about them, but relative to her responsibilities at the time, it’s of little functional consequence, and certainly far less important than her qualifications for an office her opponent is utterly unqualified for.

As a purely pragmatic exercise, with only two choices, the superior choice could hardly be more obvious. One of life’s valuable lessons is that some things really are more important than others, and knowing this is critical at times. This is one of them. All humans are imperfect, but some are disasters waiting to happen in certain kinds of circumstances, whereas others will rise to the challenge and consistently make rational, functional decisions. Besides, we are long overdue for a female leader, and we could do a lot worse.