Ronald Reagan used to speak that way about America. Today, as I’m processing recent news, I’m seeing some problems with America’s evangelical mission.
The two things that stand in stark contrast to me right now are our ideals and our system. In other words, do we intend to be an example to the world because we believe the right things — in freedom, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc., or, for some people, because we follow the demands of wokeness — or do we intend to have and demonstrate a fair and just system?
Of course some people think it’s ridiculous for the United States to see itself as an example of anything except racism and injustice, but there was a time when we held up our system as an example of fairness in practice, as opposed to the raw exercise of power.
What I’m getting at here is a question of ideals vs. procedures. Every dictator has ideals, but he cheats and lies and murders to get the power to enforce them. We’re supposed to be different. We should strive to have good ideals in a good system, but there have been some fault lines between the two.
- Portland puts the ideals of the protestors above the just administration of law.
- The Obama administration weaponized the justice department against Trump, and the FBI went along.
- If it’s true there has been voter fraud, people have compromised fair procedures for the ideals of the left. Or if you look at it the other way, if the right is cynically attacking the voting process just to keep Trump in power, it does the same.
For some people, it’s all about the ideals, and process or procedure is a distraction. Recall Pelosi’s reaction when someone asked her where the constitution allowed the government to do health care reform: “Are you serious?”
As a general rule, it seems the left is more often guilty than the right of pursuing whatever means necessary to attain their ends. “Ideals above rules and procedures” is a defining characteristic of liberals, and “but you have to do it this way” is a defining characteristic of conservatives. But the right can be criticized on this point as well. E.g., Lindsay Graham proposed one set of rules when it came to Merrick Garland and another when it came to Amy Barrett. And Trump has shown a disregard for the truth to press his agenda.
This break between ideas and rules is a fundamental error. Rules and procedures are the instantiation of our values. You can’t believe in free elections and commit voter fraud. You can’t believe in free speech and shut down speech you don’t like. You can’t believe in personal liberty and allow protestors to burn down private property.
Is it just me, or is this a growing problem? Is the connection between ideals and rules falling apart?
Probably no human system can endure. Up close, from within, the reasons for and circumstances of the failure modes vary. Everyone dies (well, almost everyone), but there are lots of different things people die from. You can probably make all sorts of “but this time it’ll be different” arguments (like that social liberal democracy end-of-history idea which was being floated, I think back in the nineties), lots of which sound persuasive at the time.
Sometimes I wonder if there are– not cycles, exactly, but common patterns in societies. Internal tensions fundamental to human beings which can be sublimated and controlled for a time in systems but even at our best it’s a very narrow potential well we’re trapped in. Random shocks and positive feedback loops inevitably combine to knock us out of it.
This barely rises to the level of a thought, much less a theory, it’s mostly just an image I keep coming back to.
Oswald Spengler?
I’m pretty sure there are patterns that lie behind a lot of movements and changes, and that we don’t have the vision to see them. As Mark Shea likes to say, phase 1 is “what could it hurt?” and phase 2 is “who could’ve known?”
We make fundamental changes to the very foundation of how we interact (e.g., with the pill), and think society will just motor along like normal.
QUOTE: Rules and procedures are the instantiation of our values. You can’t believe in free elections and commit voter fraud. You can’t believe in free speech and shut down speech you don’t like. You can’t believe in personal liberty and allow protestors to burn down private property.
Unfortunately, it seems there’s a current example of this playing out relative to the 2020 election. Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Trump supporter, in a recent statement indicated, “My job as secretary of state is to make sure we have fair and honest elections, follow the law, follow the process. When you lose an election, you should leave quietly. It’s the will of the people that has been expressed.” Interestingly, on Thanksgiving Trump called Raffensperger “an enemy of the people” and accused him, without evidence, of hiding “tens of thousands” of illegal votes.
As well, in the wake of doing his job, Raffensperger and his family have received death threats and a break-in at a relative’s home. Also, it appears he’s not getting much support from Republican colleagues. In response he stated, “If Republicans don’t start condemning this stuff, then I think they’re really complicit in it. It’s time to stand up and be counted. Are you going to stand for righteousness? Are you going to stand for integrity? Or are you going to stand for the wild mob? You wanted to condemn the wild mob when it’s on the left side. What are you going to do when it’s on our side?”
I have learned to ignore it when someone claims Trump did something “without evidence.” It’s a cheap throwaway line. I’m not saying Trump is some sort of evidence-driven scientist, but this “without evidence” gag has been repeated too often when it doesn’t apply. The fact that someone doesn’t disclose their evidence does not mean they don’t have any.
A more accurate line might be “without showing his evidence.”
We should hope everyone agrees that when you lose an election fairly, you should accept the results and move on. The question at hand is whether this election was fair. Or, rather, fair enough. No election is 100% fair.
Trump’s legal challenges are having little to no effect. There are a few ways to interpret that.
1. The most likely — He doesn’t have the evidence of significant corruption.
2. Not very likely — His lawyers are incompetent.
3. Worth keeping in mind — The judges aren’t willing to be the one who called the election into question. That would be a heavy burden to bear. OTOH, it would also be a heavy burden to be the one who ignored corruption.
About death threats and “wild mobs,” every politician should condemn such behavior whenever it occurs, no matter which side it’s on, but perhaps especially when it’s on his side.
I really had to laugh at the “possibility” of Trump having evidence without showing it.
Why? He’s such an awful speaker, my experience is that he regularly assumes his listeners know things that he has no reason to assume they know.
Yeah, right. Let’s give babbling clowns the benefit of the doubt.
That said, he has people to help with providing evidence. Without any being shown, it is an extremely safe bet that none is there.
@Robin, remember Trump helped perpetuate a baseless claim (withholding evidence) that Obama wasn’t a US citizen…tweeting about it 67 times. He even continued to stoke the fires for years after Obama released his long-form birth certificate in April 2011.
As well, we’re still waiting for evidence to be revealed about this Trump claim in 2017…“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!…I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!…How low has President Obama gone to tapp[sic]my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!” Surely, some credible “evidence” should have been revealed by now and the offenders prosecuted. Right?
Yes, I remember those things all too well. But he just lacked the verbal skills to communicate the required evidence to the public and apparently to anyone else.
Amazing president!
QUOTE: But he just lacked the verbal skills to communicate the required evidence to the public and apparently to anyone else.
Ooooh, so that’s what happened??? Since Trump indicated a good lawyer could make a great case out of this (having access to the entire Dept. of Justice, White House lawyers and personal lawyers), I wondered why this hadn’t gone forward. Mystery solved!
QUOTE: I have learned to ignore it when someone claims Trump did something “without evidence.” It’s a cheap throwaway line. I’m not saying Trump is some sort of evidence-driven scientist, but this “without evidence” gag has been repeated too often when it doesn’t apply. The fact that someone doesn’t disclose their evidence does not mean they don’t have any.
It’s not necessary to go to semantics when the resolve is so much simpler…reveal credible evidence in a court of law. Yet, what we have seen repeatedly is that Trump teases having evidence “in the court of public opinion”. To date, many of the court cases the Trump legal team has presented haven’t alleged fraud and has been noted as such in the judge’s rulings. As well, given Trump’s past behavior, it would seem more likely that if he had evidence that could overturn this election, it would have been out by now and he and his team would have been plastering the walls with it.
As for me, the distinction between “without evidence” or “without showing evidence” is meaningless in this instance. Until credible “evidence” is shown, the results of the 2020 presidential election stand and all the Trump “tease” does is unnecessarily stir the pot. Secretary of State Raffensperger seemed to indicate such in his press conference earlier today when he said, ” There are those who are exploiting the emotions of many Trump supporters with fantastic claims, half-truths, misinformation, and, frankly, they are misleading the President as well apparently.”
QUOTE: About death threats and “wild mobs,” every politician should condemn such behavior whenever it occurs, no matter which side it’s on, but perhaps especially when it’s on his side.
Agreed. Yet, there’s little being said in support of Raffensperger currently. This is especially notable given these same voices were bellowing about “mobs” earlier this year. Not only have they been silent with Raffensperger but with others election officials who’ve received death threats. In fact, where was the great hue and cry from these champions of justice when the Department of Justice confirmed an actual kidnapping plot against the Michigan governor? Crickets!
Re: the whole “no evidence” thing.
Hey MSM, Affidavits are Considered Evidence
Oh yeah, about that “evidence”…below is just a sample of what duly appointed judges have said it…but there’s more. Most of the 30 cases that have been presented by Trump’s team have been dismissed…some haven’t even alleged fraud. Bottom line, if the election is fraudulent, bring the “credible” evidence to a court of law and let the judges decide. Anything else, at this point, is bluster and semantics.
“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” Judge Stephanos Bibas Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling.
“This claim, like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together from two distinct theories in an attempt to avoid controlling precedent. This Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.”, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Brann.
I think the strategy is… repeat a lie long enough and people will believe it…which is Trump’s modus operadi forever. When he lost the Iowa caucus to Ted Cruz, it was because Ted Cruz “cheated” and “committed fraud.”
Let the lying bastard prove it in court.
That left wing bastion known as the National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/trump-election-fraud-disgraceful-endgame/
Exactly! Remember the 2016 election was alleged rigged (according to Trump) until he won. Suddenly, it wasn’t. Unfortunately, we’ve seen this movie before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnviB3mWGos