As the neverending Republican campaign for the presidency slogs along to its distant conclusion, I’d like to step back for a broader look. We focus on details: What regulations should we apply to offshore oil drilling? Should rich people pay 35% or 39% income tax? Is giving “historical” advice to Fannie Mae worth $1.3 million? And of course these and similar questions are very important, sometimes critically so. But, despite the strength of partisan opinions (including mine), it’s clear that many if not most have no objectively “right” answer (well, maybe except for the one about giving historical advice to Fannie Mae). Certainly not right answers in the same way that “How many houses were destroyed in the latest Alabama tornado, and how much will it cost to repair them?” has a right answer.
Now this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to understand what candidates want to do and their reasons why. But not only do politicians tend to try to dodge providing detailed (and hence debatable) answers, but there wouldn’t be enough time in the day to hear their opinions on everything. Hence the need to take a broader look past the day-to-day antics of who the Republicans want to bomb or jail. So, how do we do that?
Well, if we’re going to give vast power to a person or group of people, it would help to know what kind of people they are. Although I wouldn’t hold that we each can be stereotyped as one, specific kind of person, I think everybody knows from day-to-day life that we all have underlying character traits (or tendencies, if you will) that shape how we typically respond to problems and challenges. So what are the traits we want in people to whom we hand power and authority, people to whom we might turn in times of personal or social need? Maybe more importantly, what traits do we not wish to see? (If it would help redirect you from thoughts of partisan politics, think of bosses you’ve worked for, rather than political candidates)
Well, maybe it’s just me (or maybe not) but let me throw out this starter list of character traits we don’t want in people who are tasked with representing the incredibly varied interests of large numbers of people:
Perhaps you might argue that it depends in part on what problem we’re addressing. For example, if we need to lock up (Al Capone) or kill (Al Qaeda) dangerous people, maybe we need cruel, rigid, intolerant, mean-spirited leaders. On the other hand, since we first need to figure out who to lock up or kill, maybe we don’t. And if there’s a problem to which incarceration or death is not a solution, then what? Typically, leaders with these negative traits deal with such problems by denying their existence (what climate change?), and then suggesting that everybody just deal with it on their own (good luck with that flood thing!).
There are numerous historical examples of individual leaders with those repellant characteristics (eg, Attila the Hun, Hitler, Stalin, Donald Trump). But what happens when the whole power structure of a country is composed of people like that? Look no further than Afghanistan under the Taliban—jail for kite flying or playing music, no education for women, mandatory observance of the leaders’ religion, a haven for Al Qaeda but not for anyone who’s sick. Great place, don’t you think?
But what’s that got to do with us, here in America? Well, for some, strange reasons (for once, no sarcasm intended) one of our political parties has been possessed by the spirit of the Taliban, right down to the religious fundamentalism (except they are consumed by the tenets of a different religion). Which party? Does even the most right-wing among you think for a minute I’m talking about the Democrats (you of course don’t agree with me, but you knew right away who I meant, didn’t you)? No, the Republican party (though certainly not every Republican) has taken on a Taliban type of cruelty (GW Bush chuckling about what he imagined an executed woman’s last words were: “Please don’t kill me!”), rigidity (refusing to democratically compromise so that everybody gets a little of what they want), intolerance (gays out of the military), and mean-spiritedness (all our opponents hate America).
Now there are certainly many conservative individuals with whom I disagree about, say, the need for troops in Korea or stronger regulation of derivative trading, who are good-hearted people—people who donate money to help the needy, volunteer time to teach, etc. But can you honestly look at the words and actions of the Republican party (particularly its leadership, and especially the presidential candidates) and conclude they represent the positive traits I suggest we would like to see:
- Care for others (and by “others” I mean people of different sex, skin color, religion, ethnic origin, hobbies, fashion sense, etc.)
I didn’t think so. A shame.