Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Don’t Tell Me to Be Loyal
We’ve had several conversations about loyalty on Ricochet: loyalty to Trump, to the Republican Party, to loyalty to conservative or libertarian ideas. Almost every time the topic appears, I’ve felt resistance come up for me, particularly when others were told that they had to be loyal, that we needed to show a united front to the hostile and crazy people on the Left. In one way, that expectation made sense, but I still felt like pushing back. Then I asked myself what does it mean to be loyal? What am I loyal to, and why? Why is it an important value to me? Is it appropriate for others to expect loyalty from me? This post is an effort to clarify the meaning of loyalty for myself, and to encourage a discussion about its meaning for you.
In exploring the meaning of loyalty, I decided to look at the degree of commitment it required. Loyalty in one sense is a loaded word; it implies a serious allegiance to someone or something. The term is often used in a way that trivializes it: we can talk about being loyal to a football team or to a television show, but I assume that claim is made in a lighthearted manner; that’s not the loyalty I’m discussing. I realized that for me, loyalty applies to people or organizations or ideas that are at an elevated level. For example, I am loyal to the United States, but I’m not loyal to Florida. I am loyal to G-d and Judaism, but I am not loyal (for better or worse) to all of Jewish law.
Loyalty is not only an internal process, or only what we feel or believe. It is also represented by how we act. Wherever I go, I am happy to tell people that I’m an American citizen. I also identify myself as a Jew and a supporter of Israel. I write articles and contribute to discussions about those things to which I am loyal. I do so happily and without equivocation.
Loyalty demands that I act in ways that do not betray it. So, although I may be critical of actions that our government takes, I honor the Founders’ intentions and the amazing tenets they produced. Although I don’t like everything that conservatism or Republicans have come to represent, I espouse the beliefs and values that I believe they embody. I don’t, however, expect everyone to line up behind me to support the beliefs and values that I practice and to which I am loyal. As a matter of fact, I appreciate getting different points of view.
I don’t believe anyone has the right to demand that I be loyal to anything. I don’t owe anyone or anything loyalty unless I have determined that they have earned my loyalty. And even when a person or idea or organization has earned my loyalty, I am not required to offer support unquestioningly. In fact, my loyalty demands that I speak and act with integrity, that I tell the truth as I see it.
To be consistent in my beliefs about loyalty, I can’t demand what you should be loyal to, either. We must all look to our consciences and decide what calls for our loyalty and how we act on it. Loyalty does not demand we blindly accept anything; in fact, it expects us to maintain it with dedication but also with honesty; meeting our obligations to others, but with clarity and objectivity.
In terms of politics, I believe that Donald Trump would agree with me. Some people (mainly on the Left, I think) find it unacceptable that members of his cabinet, such as secretaries Jim Mattis or Rex Tillerson have publicly disagreed with him. Trump states that he has no problem with their stating opinions that differ with his own. They do that, of course, respectfully and credibly.
So when we have discussions on Ricochet, it’s my belief that criticizing Trump, taking exceptions to his decisions or offering different opinions are legitimate. I also feel compelled to praise those actions that that I think are productive and wise. There is no evidence that our forming a “unified front” will give Trump any more credibility than our expressing a variety of opinions in a thoughtful and respectful manner. (By the way, I believe that you don’t have to respect a person, but this forum demands that you act respectfully.)
A civil discussion is freedom at work, and I don’t think Donald Trump would want it any other way.
Published in Politics
I had to admit that I forgot for a moment whether you were a contributor or not, Susan. I got to the end of your piece and thought to myself, if she’s not a contributor, she should be just based on the merits of this piece alone.
The concept of being loyal to a politician or political party doesn’t resonate with me. It’s not something I can understand well since my concept of loyalty largely matches yours. There are people who I am loyal to on this earth, but these are people who I know personally and have earned my trust, gratitude, and respect.
I sometimes post on the Member Feed for various reasons, Publius. But I’m always pleased if it’s promoted. Thanks for appreciating my point of view. I don’t think people realize that trying to pummel people into falling in line is, well, totalitarian. I decided not to use that word in the OP, but I guess I just did!
I meant to say more about loyalty to individuals. You’re right. I am loyal to dear friends, and of course to my marriage/husband. I have people in my life whom I might call friends; my level of loyalty to them is determined, however, by the intimacy of the relationship and the degree of trust we share.
Well I think we owe loyalty to certain things in our life. For instance if we are in the military we owe loyalty to our unit, the chain of command, the Constitution and so on. Even being on a Sports Team or the like demands a certain amount of loyalty to the team as long as you stay on it. The same for any organization really. There is a certain level of loyalty built into having a job or even being a volunteer in a charity. To act in certain ways or criticize certain things I think you need to first resign or at least inform the people that expect loyalty from you what you are going to do.
Trump is owed a certain amount of loyalty because of his office. Like the secret service agent that said she would not die for Trump really needed to just resign her job since as a member of the Secret Service she owes any President her full service as an agent.
As for criticizing the President and his policies he is owned no loyalty at all. In fact the First Amendment is there precisely so that we can speak our minds on political issues without being disloyal or traitorous. But even having said that I think if we call ourselves Republican, Trump is owed some loyalty from all of us in face of resistance to his lawful orders, we should push back against unreasonable or flat out misinformed criticism from his political enemies. We owe him a respectful hearing and careful consideration of his policies and the like.
Am I off base in my reaction to the article or do you see what I am getting at here?
I’m just in to common enemies. Blind loyalty to a party or representative of that party leads occasionally to bad outcomes.
Not sure how, but I seemed to have double-clutched this one.
That right there.
Principles may be loyally adhered to. Parties, not so much. Candidates? Not likely.
Amen, Susan! A fine, fine post!
In some sense, a political party is a tool – a means to an end. In that respect it makes no more sense to be loyal to it than it does to be loyal to a hammer. However, that can be said of almost all teams. An Army infantry squad isn’t an end of its own. It, too, is a means to a much greater end. But nearly every man in a squad is fiercely loyal to it. Why? Because without loyalty the tool is less useful. The squad can no longer be relied upon to act as a team when the going gets tough. It’s just 9 guys with guns. Does this mean that squad members don’t disagree with each other or fight (physically) among themselves? Of course not. It just means they know when to put that crap aside and get on with the mission. Guys who were punching each other yesterday would die for each other tomorrow.
A political party is a self-selected team of similarly minded individuals organized to assist each other achieve common goals. We’re not mind-numbed robots programmed to want whatever Mitch McConnell says we should want, and we’re going to disagree with each other about the best things to do at any given time. This should be expected, and one could argue, even encouraged. But if a party is going to be effective there comes a time when members have to support the team even if they disagree with the specific goal. This is party loyalty.
Politics is rarely an immediate matter of life or death. As such, nobody should be expected to charge a machine gun nest for Donald Trump, but a person who’s unwilling to compromise a little for the success of the team should consider finding a new team.
THANK YOU, SQ! (This may help the dust settle a bit…I fervently hope.)
I am loyal to America, or our system. Watching Democrats, the Republicans seem to deserve some loyalty, for not being crazy. They wore genitals on their heads and marched, screaming, down the street. I am against that.
But Trump? I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt right now, I think he’s made a good faith effort to keep promises, that’s a point or two for him.
Trump would NEVER be my first choice for President. But there he is. And now I have to deal with him.
I see the same knives out for him as any Republican, and I can’t help but feel some loyalty to that I guess.
I believe in America, and our government was a gift from God, to mankind. And I feel such loyalty to that.
The worst of what we thought Obama could do, didn’t happen, because the way our government is set up. So I am hoping only the best of what Trump wants, will actually happen, and the worst predictions will not.
I find so much to oppose about what Democrats want, the way they governed, the way they protest a free and fair election now, it gives Trump so much more credibility.
We go forward with the President we’ve got, not the one I hoped for.
In general, I agree with you in regards to team dynamics and maybe that’s one of the many reasons why I don’t belong to a political party anymore. It’s hard for me to imagine ever joining a political party again, but stranger things have happened, I suppose.
A good leader is like an orchestra conductor. He or she picks the music, makes sure the right instruments and musicians are gathered together, establishes the goals for the music, and leads the rehearsals and performance of it. The conductor assumes the responsibility for the ultimate performance; therefore, he or she has the authority to manage the musicians. I would have little respect for a musician who sat in the back of the orchestra criticizing or undermining the conductor. If a musician doesn’t like the conductor, doesn’t share his or her goals, then he or she should find another orchestra.
Trump is in the early days of his administration, and there is a relaxed meet-and-greet mood in Washington.Trump is okay with dissent right now because he is still arranging the music and the musicians. At some point, he will have to have musicians who support his performance goals. Those musicians who don’t will have to leave.
Agreed! When we’re talking about life and death, Chuck,
I think if you are a politician, the party can demand loyalty. But we’ve even seen politicians pull away from complete loyalty, and the party members could argue that’s unacceptable, and even punish them in various ways. But as a citizen, I don’t think I’m required to be loyal.
I don’t have a problem with compromise; that has nothing to do with loyalty, although some would disagree. Great comments, Chuck–thanks!
loyalty is essential.
You and me both. But we’ll see what others think! Thanks, Nanda.
I think you are splitting hairs, and incorrectly so. You can be committed to any number of things – ideas, causes, people, yourself. Loyalty is about people. You could argue it includes organizations or institutions, but I would suggest that those are collections of people.
You make me consider something interesting about loyalty, Sash. A couple of commenters have used the term, “some loyalty.” Now I said that loyalty doesn’t require us to go lockstep with the person or organization, and in fact we can take exception. But it seems like we are either loyal or we’re not. Thoughts?
Very interesting point, Marci. We’ll have to watch whether things “tighten up” a bit. I think you’re probably right.
Can one be loyal to a cause? Or would you suggest that is also about people?
It depends upon whether one wishes to take a short term or a long term view of things. Loyalty for loyalty’s sake is not necessarily a good thing if you isolate that as single issue.
The problem here is that, whether you like it or not, you’re in a war with a movement that wishes to fundamentally transform your nation. There are two ways to look at that strategically. One can focus on individual battles or one can look at the larger picture in order to win the war. Unfortunately, the latter will occasionally present one with ethical dilemmas.
Look at the other side right now. Since the day after the election last November they have been committed to toppling the legitimately elected government of the United States through mob rule. If you don’t think that doesn’t require a certain level of effort to close ranks then I don’t think anything ever will.
Close your eyes and imagine what happens if the mob gets their way. If you’re comfortable with that, fine. If you’re not, you may want to rethink things.
So are you suggesting that the way to fight them is to form our own mob in some way, EJ? Seriously, I’m not suggesting that a lack of loyalty equates to reticence. My loyalty is formed around freedom of speech and rule of law. I will support, commit to and encourage those (including Republicans) who will fight back without violence. But to me, that does not equate with loyalty. And their mob has not gotten its way, at least not yet. Its only purpose is anarchy.
Well… :-)
Are the musicians in this analogy merely the professional politicians? Does it include semi-professionals and enthusiastic amateurs?
Surely it should not include all, or even most, citizens.
A good musical relationship with a conductor is a form of submissive communion, having learned, through practice and prompts, to sense the music the way he senses it, to give him all you can. Especially if you dislike the conductor personally, that kind of intimacy can be a little… awkward… to think about… But submissive communion is not what freeborn citizens give their political leaders.
I’ll also add – it’s also possible to hate a conductor at first, maintain the hatred for several years, but warm to him over time, either because he changes, or you do. I’ve done it.
I’ve also been in performances with interim conductors who jibed with the group so badly that some folks had to write “Don’t look at the conductor!” in their scores at critical moments, because trying to follow his cue, rather than just play it by ear (and eye – there was sheet music), could actually make things worse.
Being a Ricochetian can be about being part of a Cause that extends beyond Ricochet. Or it can be about being a freeborn citizen. Or both! There can also be a “Team Ricochet” spirit, apart from any external political Cause. Even among those who are intuitively loyal, loyalty to what can be a matter of contention.
I don’t always follow through on my loyal impulses the way I should (which causes me acute guilt, even if I sometimes handle the guilt poorly), but I’ll cop to having them, and having them fairly intensely – but also having them on a small, “clannish” scale: it’s easier for me to have loyal feelings when the group in question seems “small” rather than “large”. (Dunbar’s Number may or may not come into play.) Family, musical groups – those are about the right size. National political parties? Eh. That kind of loyalty is not my strength.
Loyalty to our principles in the long run may indeed require some forms of loyalty to people or party in the short term.
In other words, if we keep our eye on the long ball, it may mean overlooking all the less important stuff between here and the target.
This was the logic behind voting Trump to get a Gorsuch appointment. It worked much better than I expected.
Midge, thanks for doing such a great job of elaborating on the orchestra metaphor–well done! And I agree with what you’ve said, and can identify with it. Weren’t researchers also applying Dunbar’s number to effective companies, too? Or was that something else?
Great analogy, Marci!
Good point, iWe. I think people can get hung up on minor issues or snafus that Trump has fallen into, especially if they don’t like him. I think it makes sense, unless one is out to take him down, to focus on the larger issues.
That is a very interesting. Do we need to separate commitment from loyalty? I think there must be significant over lap here. So, if you were at your hospice and perhaps you were having a disagreement over some issue with the manager and the disagreement is not settled. So while the dispute is still active a funder of the hospice comes to you and asks you about problems or complaints and you chose to not bring up the disagreement but focus on the positive. Is that not an act of loyalty? Or is it just commitment? It seems to me that it would be loyalty and not just commitment to your job.
Thanks for your response, Brian. First, I think that commitment and loyalty are possibly the same scale, with loyalty on the higher end. It is deeper, more intimate, and more elevated. If I had a dispute with a manager, I wouldn’t discuss it with an outsider because it is none of their business. At one point, my hospice, which is the only non-profit in Florida, got into trouble with Medicare. I won’t go into the details, but I waited until I thought all the facts were in. I didn’t stay out of loyalty, because I’m prepared to tell people about the reasons for their problems, and they are to blame for some of them. (If I were truly loyal at a deep level, I might do everything I could to avoid the topic.) Medicare with its regulations makes it almost impossible for them to stay in business. When I knew what happened, I stayed. Fairness in the facts of facts kept me there, not a deep loyalty.
I think loyalty is a contextual concern. We may have been fighting among ourselves, but when the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor, we pulled together and were loyal to each other and our country.