It’s been dismaying of late to witness the lack of GOP adherence to any principle, their party principles or to American principles. Now, granted, some principles grind on the nerves of some Americans simply because we are not a homogeneous, coherent whole, but rather a collection of disparate groups, defined in many different ways and inevitably finding some of our founding – and, providentially, legal – principles to be incompatible with the modes of thought employed by these groups. It is up to these groups to discover ways to adjust their ideologies to the overarching framework provided by our legal and cultural systems.
But, as Steve Benen @ MaddowBlog points out, the GOP is having troubles with their own principles:
About a month ago, Birmingham, Alabama, decided it was time to give the city’s low-wage workers a raise. Local officials approved a minimum-wage increase, that would apply solely to Birmingham employers, to $10.10 an hour.
Just two days later, Alabama’s Republican governor and GOP-led legislature decided to undo what Birmingham had done. The state passed a law, which applied retroactively, prohibiting cities from raising their own minimum wages, even if they want to. In all, 17 Republican-led states have approved measures to block local control in this area. …
Responses like these to local control continue to amaze. As we talked about a month ago, contemporary conservatism is generally committed to the idea that the government that’s closest to the people – literally, geographically – is best able to respond to the public’s needs. As much as possible, officials should try to shift power and resources away to local authorities.Except, that is, when communities consider progressive measures Republicans don’t like, at which point those principles are quickly thrown out the window.
This is not an isolated incident: Michigan and Oklahoma have also seen such breach-of-principle. It’s a little appalling: just as the States serve as laboratories of democracy, the cities within those States should have a similar role in exploring policies as experiments which can be easily retracted after appropriate appraisal of their results. As Steve points out, local control should really mean decentralization; the use of the State power to control city policies should be verboten according to this principle.
But failure to adhere even to American principles does suggest something of a lack of understanding of those principles. A very recent example, supplied by NPR, from a Ted Cruz press release:
In a statement released Tuesday morning, Ted Cruz said America must secure its southern border to prevent “terrorist infiltration.” He also suggested heightened monitoring of Muslim neighborhoods, saying, “We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized.”
Along with his repulsive remarks about carpet bombing ISIS held territory, which would result in the deaths of millions of civilians, these remarks betray a remarkable lack of understanding of American principles of, well, from the Statue of Liberty:
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
Insofar as the remarks about “Muslim neighborhoods”, he later clarified them as follows:
He instead compared it to ridding neighborhoods of gang activity and law enforcement’s efforts “to take them off the street.”
A gang is a group of people who have come together with a primary purpose to commit crimes for personal aggrandizement. Suggesting the same tactics used to repress them be used in Muslim areas is a clear implication that Muslims are illegal.
Wrong answer in a secular nation such as ours’. Back to the after-school chalkboard for Cruz.
These are all particulars of a more general problem, fear of the outsider, especially when fringe elements espouse our destruction. This does appear to be a problem characteristic of a lot of conservatives, as we saw some sixty years ago when Senator Joe McCarthy began the persecution of home-grown Communists, or anyone who could be so construed. I’m reminded of this due to the recent viewing of the Jim Carrey movie The Majestic. He plays a new screenwriter by the name of Peter Appleton (one movie to his credit), whose new screenplay happens to mention the travails of coal miners and views a coal mining union in a positive light: thus he comes into the cross-hairs of a Congressional anti-Red committee. As those machinations occur, he has an accident, loses his memory, and is mistaken by a town for a lost World War II hero by the name of Luke Trimble, finally returned. Eventually recovering his memory and found by committee investigators, the committee orders his appearance, where Carrey delivers a speech on the subject of fear and its impact on freedom. All YouTube videos of the speech have been withdrawn by Warner Brothers, so I’ve assembled the speech from fragments found on the site Script-O-Rama:
Committee Chairman: Just read the damn statement.
Peter Appleton: “I, Peter Appleton. . . . ”
Committee Chairman: Mr. Appleton, the Committee’s patience is wearing thin.
Peter Appleton: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. It occurs to me there’s a bigger issue than whether or not I’m a Communist.
Committee Chairman: Bigger issue? There is no bigger issue.
Peter Appleton: Actually, not to be contrary, I think there is. Gosh, I don’t quite know what to say. Fact is, l. . . . I’ve never been a man of great conviction. I never saw the percentage in it. And quite frankly. . . I suppose. . . I lacked the courage. See, I’m not like Luke Trimble [WW II Hero]. He had the market cornered on those things. I never met the guy, but I feel like I’ve gotten to know him. The thing is, I can’t help wondering what he’d say. . .if he were standing here right now. I think he’d probably tell you…the America represented in this room. . .is not the America he died defending. I think he’d say your America is bitter. . .and cruel and small.
Committee Chairman: Come to order!
Peter Appleton:I know his America was big. Bigger than you can imagine! With a wide-open heart! Where every person has a voice! Even if you don’t like what they say–
Committee Chairman: Enough! You are out of order!
Peter Appleton: If he were here, I wonder how you’d respond. . .if you could explain to him what happened to his America.
Committee Chairman: You are skating on the edge of contempt!
Peter Appleton: That’s the first thing I’ve heard today that I agree with!
And then it moves off the point. But what Peter says is important and focuses our attention: since when did we become small and afraid?
Since we abandoned principles.
See, a principle is not an object for mere lip service, nor is it a bit of dead air which everyone edges around nervously. Principles certainly guide our actions, but more importantly, they are our moral and intellectual tools. They are tools for properly handling all situations which we may encounter. Properly put, they should guide us while answering questions of why they are principles, and why they should never be abridged; through this combined how & why, they should illuminate how to use them to resolve situations to our advantage.
When the GOP pronounces a guiding principle of decentralization of political control, they believe that local can govern more effectively (by which I mean humanely and efficiently) than can the bureaucrats in some place far away. This is a reasonable principle to at least try out. And when they abridge their principle, they lose that advantage; now we shout at the legislators at the State capitol rather than the national capitol. Thus they lose the advantage conferred, if any is indeed conferred, by application of the principle because they turn around and obviate it. The damage to their intellectual reputations are cumulative and difficult to repair.
When we abandon principles of international bearing and renown, we lose advantage: our principle of accepting desperate refugees, our principle of not committing torture, a dozen others. Each of these are neither dead words nor burdens we bear, but rather principles that confer advantages on us. When Trump demands we torture prisoners, be they criminals or opposition soldiers, he throws away the advantages that principle gave us: to not be barbarians and do the same things to our brothers, sister, aunts and uncles; to not delude ourselves into thinking we have actionable intelligence, as the CIA confirmed in their seminal report; to signal to the world of intelligent people considering emigrating here that we are safe, that you need not fear torture and persecution.
This is what we lose when we abandon our principles to the pressure of the disaster of the moment. The Democrats, I notice, have not renounced important American principles, but the GOP seems to have trouble keeping the course. And a significant portion of the electorate just doesn’t seem to understand the importance of keeping principles.
