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
BTW Susan, thanks for the debate fodder and humoring me so long.
In our case there are only two parties that matter.
One party is proud to uphold American values and American interests.
The other party is the Anti-American Party, aka the Treason Party, aka the Democratic Party.
I am convinced that we are in a desperate struggle and have reached a bottom where loyalty to America requires loyalty to the GOP. Anything else is contributing to the forces that want to transform America into not-America, and thereby bring down western civilization.
It was brought to our attention that this post had disappeared from the member feed. I’ve a notion that it’s a glitch caused when a contributor’s piece is 1) Published directly tot he member feed as Susan did and 2) Subsequently promoted to the Recommended Feed, but have asked Max to take a look tomorrow.
Regardless, this post is now appearing in both the Member Feed and the Recommended Feed.
How about the other two disappeared posts from this evening ?
I will PM you.
Please explicate on this theme. I don’t know if I believe it. Think of Atticus Finch, the best liberal ever, he believed in and loved both America and Western Civilization while hating racism. Isn’t there any of that left in the democratic party?
I think there is some of that left in the Democratic party. I think what MJbubba is seeing is the impact of liberals need for no limits on quest for Justice.
Because of the way that Liberal view everything through a moral prism they naturally tend to view any check on their power, or legal restriction or even cultural considerations to be a problem. This means that when Liberals are in power they tend to attack the very parts of the American system that make it an American system.
This change took shape in the liberal wing of the Democratic party in battle with the New Left in the 60s and beyond. Before the New Left entered the stage Liberals were basically trying to build a generally fair society with strong protections for workers and limits on corporate power. They were perfectly willing to defend American culture and embraced patriotism generally believed that America was going in the right direction. As the New Left and the Civil Rights movement, two distinct movements that often lumped together or no good reason, the Left gained the desire to pursue justice at the expense of everything else. American no longer became a good in and of itself but our system became an obstacle to achieving justice for minorities. Rights became obstacles to justice and issues of law and process became dodges behind which racists hid instead of giving justice to the oppressed.
These ideas permeated left wing politics and drive a lot of current Democrat thinking on the issues. So many Democrats pursue ideas to achieve justice in a particular circumstance that if the ideas became general would destroy the social fabric of the US. However because the typical Democrat silos, these issue in their minds, he feels it is safe to abandon the rule of law in immigration, while allowing the rule of law to flourish in their neighborhoods and around their homes. We know the world does not silo these issues from each other and when we suspend the rule of law in one area it weakens the rule of law everywhere. Which is why many liberals want strong law enforcement in certain areas while they are willing to completely abandon it in others.
Hey, I learned a lot! It helped me clarify my own ideas and I appreciate that although we may not agree, you’ve thought through your own. Thank YOU!
The Democrat Party loves hating racism, but they have weaponized racism and use it to create and then attack a series of strawmen. Their racism is enthusiastic, but investigation reveals that it is important to them precisely because it is a tool they have shaped in order to attack conservatives.
Name a single leader in the Democrat Party of whom it can be said that they love Western Civilization. They have purged their ranks of all traditionalists and have embraced the Progressive assault on all the old institutions of Western Civilization. Exhibit A is their continued assault on the churches.
What saddens and annoys me is that the Democrats may have tried to help blacks with welfare programs, but they’ve essentially crippled them. Instead of acknowledging these mistakes and making changes, they have doubled down on these devastating programs. Now much of the black community believes they are victims, and they blame Republicans. What a mess.
Socialism and Communism depend on loyalty to work. Capitalism only requires that people are loyal to themselves. That is the beauty of it.
Yes. That’s what I was going to point out. And we are at war right now. Every single hour we have news commentators telling us Trump lies “all the time”( like Omega didn’t?) even outright saying he’s mentally unstable. This because he is doing exactly what he said he would do. We can’t afford cracks in our façade.
Civility is totally overrated. It means you control yourself while you’re being insulted, in the belief that you’ll get a chance to talk next–but you don’t get that chance from the Left or from the anti-Trump rump. Return blow for blow, because that’s the only shot you’re gonna get. A soft answer does not turn away wrath in this climate.
I wouldn’t characterize civility as passive and soft. Civility can be quite direct, clear, forceful, even sometimes passionate. It’s about showing discipline and responding in a pointed and relevant way, not out of control, throwing bombs or name calling. I don’t allow a person to get away with insulting me, unless the person looks so ridiculous that anyone watching or listening sees how foolish he or she is and I choose not to give him or her the time of day. So if someone throws a nasty blow, it serves no purpose to be nasty back–it just shows I’m as hysterical, ignorant and foolish.
There’s a valuable lesson in there. How to insult somebody and get away with it.
I’ve also learned that when you remain calm but firm and focused, it will drive the other person even crazier. My secret weapon and now I’ve given it away!
Wait a sec. Who’s getting away with what? ;-)
I am, or suspect I have. I was wondering why when I’ve said stupid and potentially insulting things that people have let me get away with it. Now I think I know.
Wow. A sincere and honest self-realization. Thanks, Chuck.
Or a joke so on the nose that you couldn’t tell. Tomayto, tomahto.
It’s not just blacks as the welfare culture has spread to Anglos and Hispanics also. And now they’re going for the universities as many of our youths go to college on government loans and feel no need to work.
A gentlemen’s agreement only works if both parties are gentlemen. We can talk of civility, etc., but the reality is becoming increasingly clear that the Democrats are being taken over by the animals in the zoo who do not recognize laws. They have declared war on civility while we proselytize about the virtues of reason. We can reason among ourselves until the cows come home, but I increasingly believe this country is being torn in two by forces of anarchy. We must defend the rule of law with the force allowed by our constitution, or we are doomed.
I agree with all you say, GWW. But I’m not going to act like an animal in the zoo because they do. I think we must be forceful, too, within the rule of law. There’s no reason we can’t do that with civil behavior.
I surely didn’t mean to imply that we should act like an animal in the zoo and stipulated that we need to defend the rule of law with the force allowed by the constitution. Did you think I meant otherwise?
I didn’t think so, but I wasn’t sure. When you used the phrase “gentleman’s agreement” which I hadn’t mentioned or nor was I suggesting by talking about civility, I’d hoped you didn’t mean the opposite. I might have also been still reacting to Hypatia’s earlier comment. I’m very glad to know that we agree. Part of what I like about OPs is that we can get to know each other better through this kind of clarifying. Thanks for checking in.
A little late to the discussion, but my hearty concurrence, Susan.
Unthinking, unquestioning loyalty gave us the Reign of Terror, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Communist China.
I will not put my brain on the shelf in the service of politician or party.