Neither Major American Political Party Has a Monopoly on Hatred or Hypocrisy

Given no other choice, would you prefer death by lethal injection or death by electric chair? Either way, death is death and neither choice is desirable, right? Choosing how you prefer to die is what it has been like to vote in the past several American election cycles, as I noted over a year ago when I mentioned Garry Kasparov's lament that America used to be about striving for excellence but the last two Presidential elections have been about choosing the lesser of two evils.

President Joe Biden's defining moment is the triumph of the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is also noteworthy that President Biden is rewarding the Palestinian Authority for sponsoring terrorist attacks against Jews. If you believe that the President bears significant responsibility for the functioning of the economy--I think that Presidents get too much blame/credit for something that is multifaceted and not directly controlled by them--then it should be mentioned that the U.S. economy has tanked since President Biden took office.

Former President Donald Trump recently met with unrepentant antisemites, and his resume is filled with offensive statements and actions that have been so often discussed that they scarcely need mentioning to anyone who has paid the slightest attention for the past six years or so.

I would respect any media member or politician who criticized both men without hesitation or equivocation, and who pointed out the manifest failures of both major American political parties--but that is not how things work now. Instead, people tend to criticize everyone on the other side of the political aisle while remaining willfully blind, deaf, and silent about the flaws on their side of the political aisle.

The Democratic Party promotes itself as supporting diversity and inclusion, but the reality is that antisemitism from the Left is a growing threat that many media outlets are reluctant to cover. The Democratic Party has proven unwilling or incapable of purging itself of self-proclaimed "progressives" who spew hate, and because of this failure the Democratic Party's complaints about hatred emanating from the political Right sound hollow and hypocritical. The Democratic Party has also embraced socialist/"progressive" policies that are out of step with the viewpoints of most Americans, as is demonstrated by President Biden's low approval ratings and by the midterm election defeats suffered by Democrats who did not have the good fortune of running against Trump supporters; for example, the decisive victory of the Republican Party in the Georgia governor race suggests that if the Republicans had put forth any reasonable candidate for Senate (instead of Herschel Walker) then the voters would likely have gotten rid of Raphael Warnock (who will face Walker in a runoff because neither candidate received at least 50% of the vote).

The Republican Party is justified to condemn the hatred and antisemitism of the self-proclaimed "progressives," but loses credibility because of its refusal to speak strongly against Donald Trump and other Republicans who have engaged in hateful speech or actions. Now that the Republican Party has regained control of the House, it has vowed to remove members of the so-called "Squad" from key committee assignments, which is the correct action--but what ultimate good does that accomplish if antisemites from the Left are just replaced with antisemites from the Right such as Marjorie Taylor Greene?

The sad reality is that most politicians from either side of the political aisle are self-centered opportunists who say whatever they think is most likely to help them get elected. For example, Donald Trump's critics assert that he is a racist and antisemite, while his supporters often counter by citing specific policy actions Trump took as President that they consider positive. I look at Donald Trump differently than both his critics and his supporters in that I simultaneously abhor many of the things he has said and done while also agreeing that some of his policy actions were positive (such as withdrawing from the ineffective JCPOA deal with Iran)--but I view his words and actions from the perspective that his words and actions do not necessarily reflect not his sincerely held ideological beliefs but rather his beliefs about what he should do and say to maximize his chance to be elected. 

In a December 1987 interview with David Letterman, oddsmaker Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder (who would soon lose his TV job with CBS after he asserted that Blacks are superior athletes because Black slaves were bred for certain physical traits and that if Blacks became coaches then there would be no place left for white people in sports) assessed the likelihood that Trump could be elected President in 1988. Snyder said that Trump could not run as a moderate Republican because George H.W. Bush and Robert Dole had already staked out that territory within the party, but Snyder believed that if Trump ran as a Democrat then Trump had an excellent chance to win. Snyder's analysis was very prescient to the extent that he recognized that Trump could be elected President if Trump articulated specific political stances that may not reflect Trump's personal beliefs.

My assessment of what happened in the 2016 Presidential campaign is that Trump and his team did a similar analysis to Snyder's but for various tactical reasons chose the opposite strategy: they understood that Trump would not likely win by running as a moderate Republican, but instead of pivoting to the Left they decided to swing further to the Right. I am not convinced that Trump believes in anything other than that which will help him accumulate more money, more power, and more publicity. I see him as the real life version of the "Wiseguy" character Knox Pooley, who was portrayed by actor Fred Dalton Thompson (who later was elected as a U.S. Senator from Tennessee). Thompson said of Pooley, "He is more of a salesman, more of a conman than a white supremacist. He's using white supremacy as his latest gambit to make a killing." This comparison is not meant to minimize the dangers posed by a conman like Pooley (whose followers committed violent acts, including murder) or by a politician like Trump but rather to emphasize that the actions of such men are properly viewed not through the prism of ideology but rather from the perspective of evaluating narcissistic behavior. Pooley was equally comfortable spouting antisemitic rhetoric and then selling real estate to Jewish purchasers (which was his next scheme after his white supremacist group collapsed); Trump is equally comfortable enacting policies that may seem to benefit Jews and/or Israel, and embracing antisemites. The words and actions of Pooley and Trump only seem contradictory if you assume that Pooley and Trump are motivated by an internally consistent political ideology or moral code; if you assume that Pooley and Trump are motivated by their perceived self-interest regardless of the consequences to others, then their words and actions make sense (not from the standpoint of being moral, proper, or even consistent, but from the standpoint of advancing or attempting to advance a personal agenda).

Trump makes little to no effort to hide his inflated view of himself and his self-centered motivations, but it would be a mistake to believe that other politicians--on either side of the aisle--are much nobler; other politicians are just subtler and more polished. 

I should add that it is not fair to accuse all Republicans of being racists or to accuse all Democrats of being socialists. The extreme rhetoric emanating from both sides of the political aisle is a barrier to communication, cooperation, and progress. It is healthy for a democracy to have political parties that disagree about the means, as long as there is general agreement about the ends (to borrow the formulation used by Kasparov to describe how American politics should be). It would be wonderful if the Democrats nominated a strong leader who effectively articulates Left-wing (not socialist) policy positions, and if the Republicans nominated a strong leader who effectively articulates Right-wing policy positions without overtly or covertly sending signals that provide aid and comfort to racists.

Returning to the question that opened this article, given no other choice, would you prefer death by lethal injection or death by electric chair? Either way, death is death and neither choice is desirable, right? Sadly, in the 2024 Presidential election we may be faced with a similarly unpleasant choice in a dreadful rerun of the 2020 Presidential election.

Bigotry Must Never be a Partisan Issue

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has expressed hate-filled views that should be repudiated by all. Similarly--but with much less media attention or media criticism--Rep. Ilhan Omar has expressed hate-filled views that should be repudiated by all. Antisemitism and racism should not be partisan issues. Democrats are correct to speak out against Rep. Taylor Greene, but every one of them who speaks out against her without speaking out against Rep. Omar is a hypocrite; similarly, Republicans are correct to speak out against Rep. Omar but every one of them who speaks out against her without speaking out against Rep. Taylor Greene is a hypocrite.

The movement to censure Rep. Taylor Greene--which resulted in a House vote removing her from all of her committee assignments--has been led by Democrats, with very little Republican support (11 Republicans voted in favor of removing Taylor Greene). Each party selects which members to appoint to House committees, so a House vote to override a party's selection is unusual, if not unprecedented. The Republican Party had the opportunity to either not appoint her to any committees, or to withdraw those appointments--as the Republican Party did in 2019 when Rep. Steve King made offensive comments--but refused to do so, after which the Democrats initiated a House vote.

Rep. Taylor Greene was lawfully elected, and unless she engages in illegal conduct while in office she should not be removed from office--no matter how distasteful her beliefs and statements are--but the Republican Party should not be promoting her or her beliefs.

Now, several Republicans are correctly seeking to remove Rep. Ilhan Omar from her committee assignments due to her antisemitism. Rep. Omar has made several antisemitic statements while in office, and she has drawn praise from racist antisemites, most notably the infamous former KKK leader David Duke. It seems unlikely that the Democrats will support Rep. Omar's removal, so because the Democrats control the House her position is secure.

Neither party has covered itself in glory. The Democrats are correct about Rep. Taylor Greene, but their actions smack of hypocrisy because of their unwillingness to clean out their own stables; likewise, the Republicans are correct about Rep. Omar, but taking action against her only after the Democrats ousted Rep. Taylor Greene smacks of partisanship antics as opposed to a serious attempt to fight bigotry, particularly since those who are opposed to Rep. Omar refuse to speak out regarding Rep. Taylor Greene.

Both parties are more concerned about accumulating and keeping power than they are with doing the right thing, and that is a very sad commentary on our country's current politics.

A Much Needed Voice of Reason Regarding America's Toxic Politics

A detached observer who is not a diehard advocate for the Democratic Party or for the Republican Party can see the myriad ways that both political parties have created and contributed to the toxic politics that afflicts our nation. One can argue about which persons or events are most responsible, but both sides have engaged in dangerous rhetoric and harmful actions for a long time, and the situation will not meaningfully improve until both sides behave a lot better.

That paragraph will almost certainly irritate, if not outrage, about 80% of the population--in other words, the people who are strongly committed to consistently voting only for candidates from one of the two major parties. The other 20% of the population is hoping that the majority will stop thinking in purely partisan terms, and start thinking about saving our country.

In the Star Trek episode titled "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," the last two survivors of the planet Cheron are engaged in a battle to the death. One survivor is black on the left side of his face and white on the right side of his face, while the other survivor is white on the left side of his face and black on the right side of his face. Each one informs Captain Kirk that it is obvious how different they are from each other, while Captain Kirk tries to explain to them that they are clearly members of the same race. 

American politics makes about as much sense as Cheronian politics: two sides each claiming that they alone possess all of the truth and the the other side is purely evil, even though a detached observer can see the folly in both claims.

Not all (or even most) Republicans are racists. The notion that over 70 million racists voted for Donald Trump is offensive, absurd, and demonstrably false: it is easy to examine the voting numbers and figure out that there are a large number of people who voted for Barack Obama, and then voted for Donald Trump when Donald Trump ran against Hillary Clinton. Those voters did not suddenly become racists.

Not all (or even most) Democrats are socialists. The notion that over 70 million socialists voted for Joe Biden is offensive, absurd, and demonstrably false: it is easy to examine the voting numbers and figure out that there are a  large number of people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and then voted for Joe Biden in 2020. Those voters did not suddenly become socialists.

Party identification alone does not encompass everything important about a person's identity, beliefs, and values.

People make choices for complex reasons, not all of which are logical or even internally consistent. 

There are Republicans who hold extreme right-wing views, and there are Democrats who hold socialist views. Extremism from either side of the political spectrum is dangerous and poses a threat to the foundations of our country. There are racists within both parties, and racists from both parties have been elected to office. Any media outlet or organization or person who frames the discussion such that all or most of the "bad guys" are from one side of the aisle is engaging in propaganda. There are "bad guys" on both sides of the aisle, and we need to work together to curb the influence of all of them, not just those with whom we may disagree with about other issues. A "bad guy" who wants the same economic or foreign policies that you want is still a "bad guy."

Most Americans hold moderate views, and would like to have a functional government comprised of elected officials who work for the people as opposed to elected officials who are trying to gain more power for themselves and their party.

Steve Scalise, the Republican House minority whip, wrote Politics Has No Place For Violence, an outstanding Op-Ed piece for the January 13, 2021 edition of The Wall Street Journal:

In 2017, I was shot on a baseball field by a politically motivated gunman. The deranged shooter was heavily influenced by the demonization of congressional Republicans by some Democratic politicians, whose statements were amplified by the mainstream media. In the aftermath of my shooting, I made a conscious decision not to hold anybody but the gunman responsible for that day's events.

It would, however, be naive to think the shooter arrived at his decision in a vacuum. It would be equally naive to think that the Capitol rioters arrived at their decisions in a void. Violent rhetoric helps radicalize people. Republicans and Democrats alike must have the moral clarity to call this language out whenever it is spoken, not only when it comes from the other side of the political aisle.

Many Democrats who were rightfully quick to join us in condemning last week's events at the Capitol were noticeably silent over the summer. In those months, Americans watched looters ransack small businesses while cities went up in flames. Radical progressives attacked police precincts and federal courthouses, and leftist protesters clashed repeatedly with police. In Minneapolis, Kenosha, Wis., Seattle's 'Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone,' the District of Columbia and other cities, many elected officials outright enabled a cruel disregard for life, property and the rule of law in the name of social justice. Many in the media cheered the violence. 'Show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful,' CNN's Chris Cuomo said.

Elected officials and media personalities have a responsibility to condemn political violence and violent rhetoric across the board, not only when it's politically convenient. Republicans don't have a perfect record either. They must commit to this ideal alongside Democrats. Selectively condemning political violence sends a message to would-be perpetrators that cruelty and destruction in the name of a political agenda will be celebrated. We must put a stop to this dangerous idea. America settles its differences through debate and democracy, not mob rule and violence.

It is hypocritical to praise last summer's widespread violence but condemn the attack against the Capitol building, and it is hypocritical to praise the attack against the Capitol building but condemn last summer's widespread violence. If you value the rule of law, then you must condemn both, without hesitation or equivocation. Even if you think that "your" violent protesters have the right ideology, it is irresponsible to support their violent actions. Some people on both sides compare "their" violent actions to the actions of our Founding Fathers during the Revolutionary War, but that analogy fails because the Founding Fathers engaged in revolution against a monarchy that denied them their basic rights, including the right to vote. Here in America we have the right to vote, and we have the mechanisms to enact peaceful changes by majority rule. In the past eight years, the majority has alternated between electing a Democratic President (Obama), a Republican President (Trump), and a Democratic President (Biden). Whether or not you like the outcome of a given election, we all have a responsibility to respect each outcome, and to work peacefully within the system to create the changes we seek.

Scalise concludes:

Republicans have a responsibility to put our house in order and focus on ensuring a smooth transition of power. Democrats have that responsibility too. I am committed to pursuing these dual goals, and I invite everyone who cares about America's greatness to join me in learning from the mistakes of the past while building a brighter tomorrow.

If your first thought after reading those words begins with "But the Republicans are worse because..." or "But the Democrats are worse because..." then you have missed the point, and you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The problem is that there are far too many people on both sides of the aisle who lack faith in the system and thus believe that violence is not only desirable but necessary, and there are far too few people on both sides of the aisle who will unhesitatingly condemn violence regardless of the professed ideologies of those who are committing violence. The solution is working together within the system so that our country lives up to the ideals of its Founders.

Is America Heading for Violent Revolution?

"Intelligentsia" is a nice-sounding word with a sinister undertone. Gary Saul Morson, a professor of Russian literature at Northwestern University, explains in a Wall Street Journal interview that in the classic period in Russia (approximately 1860-1905) "the word did not mean everybody who was educated. It meant educated people who identified with one or another of the radical movements. 'Intelligents' believed in atheism, revolution and either socialism or anarchism."

Professor Morson is concerned about the extent and nature of the riots that took place in America after George Floyd's brutal death under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer. Professor Morson declares, "To me it's astonishingly like late 19th-, early 20th-century Russia, when basically the entire educated class felt you simply had to be against the regime or some sort of revolutionary." He adds that we have reached a dangerous point in which, as writer Barton Swaim paraphrases Morson's analysis, "well-intentioned liberal people often can't bring themselves to say that lawless violence is wrong." The intelligentsia sparked a revolution that led to decades of socialist oppression not just in the Soviet Union but also in every country that had the misfortune of being behind the Iron Curtain. Professor Morson is concerned that America is heading toward a similarly violent revolution.

How often have we heard public figures say that mass violence/rioting is understandable, and that it does not matter because insurance will pay for the damage? Such reckless statements are the recipe for the unraveling of societal order. At least as worrisome as the casual condoning of violence is the current climate in which it has become unacceptable--if not impossible--to have an intelligent and meaningful dialogue about complex issues; all we have now are competing, angry monologues. Morson states, "You get into a revolutionary situation because people can't hear. Can there be a dialogue on important questions, or is there only one thing to say about every question? Are people afraid to say, 'Well, yes, but it's not quite as simple as that'?...When you can't do that, you're heading to a one-party state or a dictatorship of some sort. If one party is always wrong and another always right, why not just have the right one?" (emphasis added).

We appear to be at a crucial and historic juncture. Will America's two party system collapse? Will either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party wipe out the other? Will America have just one "right" party, with no dissent permitted? There used to be a sense that the two main U.S. political parties agreed in a large sense about the goals for America, but disagreed about how to best obtain those goals. Now, the parties barely speak to each other in any meaningful or productive way. Partisans for each side don't just disagree with their opponents; they demonize them.

Professor Morson calls this "ideological segregation." He explains, "It was very easy for white people to believe evil things about black people when they never met any. But when you live with somebody, you realize that they're no worse than you are...We've increasingly had ideological segregation on both sides. Each side has caricature views of the other."

Meanwhile--perhaps due at least in part to understandable frustration with both parties--it has become fashionable for many young people to play around with socialism or anarchism, much like a small child who does not know better (and is not properly supervised) might play around with matches until he or she starts a big fire. If you are young and/or misinformed then you have neither the life experience nor the educational background to know about how Stalin murdered tens of millions of people in the name of socialism, or about the killing fields of Southeast Asia, or about how anarchism has proven capable only of destroying but not of building anything of lasting value.

Professor Morson somberly concludes, "we have a major depression, we have terrible fear from the illness, and now we have mass riots in the street, which our leaders do not seem to know how to handle. That's a very rapid slide from only a year ago. And there's no reason to think it will slow down. The slide could well continue."

I share Professor Morson's concern about America's future. Perhaps the one saving grace for America is that this country, however flawed and divided, was founded as a liberal democracy, while Russia has a history of authoritarianism and totalitarianism that dates back many centuries; socialism and tyranny found fertile soil in Russia, while here the soil may not be as well-suited for socialism and tyranny--but anyone who cares about this country's future cannot be satisfied with the hope/expectation that socialism and tyranny could never take hold here: we must fight to preserve what is great about America, while also striving to improve our country where improvements are needed.

There is no doubt that America needs to improve in some areas, but those who assert that America is somehow founded in sin and/or is irredeemably evil should well consider the lessons of world history. A country based on liberal democracy with a capitalist economic system is far from perfect--but it is infinitely better than a country built on the illusions of socialism or the disarray of anarchy. We must work together to save what deserves saving, fix what is broken, and develop creative solutions to both old and new challenges.

In the words of Winston Churchill, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

In the spirit of Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we must work together not to destroy America but rather to build America up to the point that this country fully lives up to the ideals upon which she was founded.