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
That’s a good question. I think it hints at some of the cause for our disparate expectation of loyalty.
Loyalty is a measure of what I’m willing to sacrifice for your benefit. If my interests align perfectly with yours, perfect loyalty is indistinguishable from pure self-interest. Loyalty is only useful as a value unto itself because members of groups will always have conflicting self-interests.
No, you cannot be loyal to a cause, but people who are committed to the same cause(s) may perceive you as loyal to them and be disappointed when they discover you are not. They may also come to expect loyalty. Whether or not they are due that loyalty in any specific case is a question upon which reasonable people may disagree.
The confusion between commitment to a cause and loyalty to a group can be hard to distinguish in practice. Let’s say it’s 1938 and we’re conspirators in a plan to assassinate Hitler because we both agree he’s evil and dangerous. I’m caught in the act of executing our shared plan and tortured to identify my co-conspirators. It would seem to be in my interest to give you up, but if I don’t you can’t be certain why. Did I keep your secret so that you could continue efforts to kill the fuhrer (commitment to the cause), or did I keep it because I didn’t want you harmed (loyalty to you)?
I keep going back to life and death examples not because loyalty only applies when those are the stakes, but because distinctions presented by those examples are sharp. Most of life’s dilemmas are less clear. If we again consider party politics, few people agree with everything their party stands for, or with every decision made by its leadership, but presumably they believe that party is going to achieve better overall results for the nation. This means that loyalty to the party, which would seem to be warranted by the superiority of its overall platform, can be at odds with your commitment to specific causes.
Again, life and death marks a sharp example. If you are pro-life and Trump reverses course and becomes pro-choice, I suspect few would judge you disloyal for putting your commitment to the cause before support for the party. However, if your commitment is to the elimination of corporate income taxes and you abandon the party because Trump is willing to compromise at a 10% corporate tax rate, you should expect to be called disloyal. Are you? I guess it depends on how important you think the corporate tax rate is. But don’t expect many people to defend you.
This is an interesting observation and an interesting post.
As near as I can tell, only three commenters are exploring the boundaries of loyalty and the expectations of loyalty. Everything else so far seems like exploring rationalizations for disloyalty.
Fascinating! Love it! But I have a question about this paragraph, which seems to include assumptions that may not be true. If I am loyal to a cause, say the right for Israel to exist, I may or may not be loyal to others who are also loyal to Israel. For example, Alan Dershowitz is on the Left, and the only area where we would probably agree is on his support of Israel. I don’t think it would be fair or reasonable for him to expect that I am loyal to him otherwise. If he did expect that, and he is disappointed, that’s unfortunate. So people can expect my support re the survival of Israel, period.
The rest of your points are very clear and I agree with you! Thanks!
I think you ladies have insufficient purity of loyalty to Trump or to Never Trump. Didn’t you know there’s only two sides in this 3D world? ;-)
We all have hierarchies of loyalties.
My first loyalties are to the G-d who made me and who offers me eternal salvation from my own sin, and to my spouse, who is my rib; the gift from G-d to whom I am pledged.
All other claimants to my loyalty are secondary to these.
After family, employer, close friends and neighbors come political loyalties. Nevertheless, political loyalties claim a lot of our energy, because this is where loyalties shift according to alliances, principles, culture wars, personalities and other factors. Political loyalties are subject to change and subject to an appeal, so they get more energy spent on them than other loyalties that are higher in our hierarchy of loyalties but are more settled matters and not up for debate.
Again, loyalty is personal. Nobody expects anybody to be loyal to people they don’t know even if all of their political views align. But if support for Israel led both you and Alan to join B’nai B’rith, he might be rightly disappointed if you abandoned the organization the first time you disliked a press release. You could argue that you owe the organization nothing, only the cause. But if everybody acted that way the organization wouldn’t exist. As the organization is likely to be more effective than would all of it’s members acting individually, your shared cause is better advanced by being loyal to the organization. Loyalty is supporting the organization because the organization has value.
Thanks, MJ. So I think I’m hearing you say that political loyalties are more fluid than those higher in our hierarchies. I guess I would agree, although I don’t connect political commitments to my ideas of loyalty. Rather they serve, but not consistently, my loyalty to country.
BTW, we all know loyalty is a two-way street when it comes to individuals and small teams, but we often seem to forget this when it comes to large groups, especially political ones. When a politician or staffer says something stupid and the left starts shouting “RACIST” at the top of their lungs, the common response by “the party” is to distance themselves from the victim. There are limits on what behavior can be defended, but loyalty requires defending that person right up to those limits.
The same applies here on Ricochet. Let’s not see every disagreement as disloyalty and attempt to write people who hold the unpopular viewpoint out of the movement. If we expect loyalty, we should demonstrate it ourselves.
Double Like!
Have to say that ‘neither’, then – and ‘wait and see’, now – as well as unaffiliated in re: party, describes me…Loyalty is related to trust, which must be earned. I take your point, though. :-) (What are you doing instead of chasing steelheads for fun?)
Back to my point about minimum amount of loyalty is required for groups to function. Contrast to real life sports teams I was on as a kid.
The first one, during a scrimmage game of soccer I had an awesome break out run with the ball. I beat four defenders in a row and made a run on the goal. I could have passed but the team mates nearest to me just called out for me to take the shot. The goalie decided to charge me and I beat him to and went to make an easy score…when a boy on my team, our lead scorer, took the ball from me and kicked it away. Claimed I was “show boating”. This boy’s mother was the coach and back up her son. The Lead Scorer was dedicated to his job and playing his position but had no loyalty to the team or any of us really. The coach was not loyal to the team though she tried to get us to win but her loyalty was just to her son. Our team never really gelled and we never really felt like a team.
A few years later I am on another team that was chosen by random draw. Several of us on the team were rivals at school and had even fought each other over various slights or feuds. We did not like each other much and nearly all of us were disappointed that we got lumped together. Our season started off rather poorly. Then we had to a play a rich team whose parents had hired a coach and they were the highest scoring team in our league. Our coach really tried to rev us up and he came up with a defensive plan that we executed well. Near half time we were up 1-0 and the other team was going nuts. Right after half time the other team started playing rough and giving a lot of fouls that the ref “didn’t see”. Ray was a boy on that team and he had been very frustrated by our defense. In a setup play Ray slammed his fist into my stomach, as I kicked the ball down field, at run so that I literally turned head over heels and landed on the ground breath gone. This in full view of the parents, the ref and both coaches. No foul was called.
Despite the foul play we tied them and at the end as we were slapping hands saying “good game” Steve, the biggest boy on my team, punched Ray in the face and both teams went in glorious chaos. Steve and I did not like each other and had fought each other at school, but he told coach after the fight, “He attacked my team mate and got away with it. No way was I going to let him do that.”
That team bonded, deeply, and won a lot of games together.
I’m not about to say that these wonderful stories were not about loyalty! Thanks, Brian. (I almost cheered aloud about Ray!)
I think I’m almost done here, but I have an example of the value of party loyalty.
As @rodin suggested in @joep‘s OP yesterday, the Democrat’s best chance at success over the next two years is to exploit disagreements between congressional Republicans and the Trump Administration to marginalize some Republicans and pull Trump further to the left on some issues.
If we all pursue the causes to which we’re committed, that strategy will work. We’ll be unable to affect an affirmative Republican agenda, and we’ll get worse results than we would have had we supported each other. Even if congressional Republicans can prevent any Democratic legislation from passing with Trump’s support, the Democrats will increase power and be better positioned for the 2018 election. Party loyalty is our best defense against this strategy.
I mentioned earlier that expectations of the politicians are in a different category than the people in general. So I see the value of your premise: if you’ve chosen to be in government, a certain amount of loyalty makes sense, unless Trump goes off the rails. I don’t see that so far.
Like to Infinity!
Politicians can only compromise if their voters let them. If we get up in arms because they’re supporting positions that fail our ideological purity tests their hands will be tied. We’re all responsible for politics, not just the politicians.
@iwe, thank you!
My acerbic sense of humor, sarcasm, and somewhat cynical outlook on life and ideas was finely honed by the people I met on the streets. It’s a gift, and gifts should be shared, regardless of gender, creed, race, or party affiliation. I learned how to show compassion on the streets as well, but I would be remiss and doing a disservice to those that gave me an education that no college could ever provide.
I don’t find disagreement voiced by friends of mine to be disloyalty. I appreciate hearing a different opinion whether I come to agree with it or not as that is how I can hone my own opinion best either by modifying my opinion or sometimes by solidifying it. If I only hear what I already agree with my development is stunted.
Of course if someone becomes abusive in giving a contrary opinion that is a different matter.
Fine post and questions/discussion points raised Susan, but to play Devil’s advocate – do those whom we voted for owe us anything? Should those ‘loyal’ Civil Servants work to implement our new President’s initiatives or work to undermine them. Should we not be loyal to our employers/ co-workers (and them to us)? Did loyalty require Susan Collins or Murkowski confirm DeVos as Sec. of Ed. or their supporters in the Teachers Unions.
That loyalty is a double-edged blade. Do I owe anyone/anything unconditional loyalty? No, I don’t think so. What, for instance, do I owe Trump (at this point, after voting for him)? In considering question, my answer is often self-serving as I’m ‘benefitting’ myself: I support him against the mob, against the Islamists, against the Leftist – at the same time, I don’t get the ‘Russia’ thing and hated that ‘lot of killers’ attitude.
Loyalty is a culturally accepted value. Conservatives, being the ideologues that they are, tend to rely on their values to guide their decisions or behavior in the absence of complete information or when circumstance are too complex to predetermine the outcome. Rather than rely on our own knowledge and cognitive ability, we stick with the tried and true.
So what form might loyalty to Trump take? Defending him against baseless attacks. Forgiving him for minor disagreements with your preferred policies. Standing up for him when idiots compare him to Hitler even if you don’t agree with him on the point in question. I can’t think of any ideological reason to do these things, other possibly than grace when it come to forgiving disagreements. We should do these things because they’re good for the team. Fighting for the team when you know it’s best for the team is teamwork. Fighting for the team even when you’re uncertain what’s best for the team is loyalty.
And fighting against the team because you somehow think the team will benefit from a loss more than from a victory?
Definitely not loyal or helpful. But fighting against the team because you think it’s being self-destructive could be different. Could be like shooting somebody in the leg to prevent them from committing suicide. Some people were doing that prior to the election. I sorta get it because I was on the fence for a long time. Sometimes the best behavior loyalty can inspire is to reserve judgement.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. I was talking about team loyalty. Sometimes I think the politicians don’t care what we want.
Absolutely! But it’s not so much because they have to be loyal to us. It’s their job descriptions–just do your jobs! ;-)
I hate to keep going around–I hope we’re extending the ideas, not belaboring them, Chuck–but I think we are fighting for the country–our loyalty is for the good ol’ USA– and our team is the best way to do that.
I’m not sure, but I think there’s a distinction, and I’ll take one more stab at making it.
I think the Republican party is the best vehicle available to achieve desirable political ends for the nation, and as such, warrants some loyalty. The merits of any particular policy should be debated, but we shouldn’t necessarily insist upon what we think is best for the country. Sometimes what’s best for the country in a specific case will lose votes for the party in the next election, and by extension, result in a worse outcome for the country. Trying to predict the outcome of these specific decisions can be very difficult. I’m suggesting that when uncertain, it’s OK, perhaps even advisable, to be loyal to the party.
Loyalty that is not a two way street is betrayal. If someone wants me to be loyal to a person that person also better be loyal to me otherwise there will be a falling out, its also called adultery or grounds for a divorce. Therefore that idea that loyalty to a person that does not have at lest some conditions is just a form a totalitarianism. So you better believe there are conditions to my loyalty of which Republicans/Democrats and no politician has even close to deserving because they are politicians first and loyalty is near the bottom of their list with a few rare exceptions.
Maybe I should ask you what is probably the obvious: what does being “loyal to the party” mean?
Precisely the type of behavior that loyalty to a friend demands when they make a choice you don’t approve of. Don’t disown them. Don’t harp on it. Defend the decision as best you can. (Even if you disagree, the choice probably has some merits. Focus on those.) Even if you can’t defend the decision you can still defend the party from outside criticism. If I were a better friend I could probably come up with more.