Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
I’ve always been more interested in internecine debates.
Consider two people who strongly disagree about EVERYTHING. They really can’t debate anything. If their opinions are that polarized and inflexible, they’ve probably converted their ideology into their identity, which makes even reasonable questions seem like vicious personal attacks. And they respond accordingly. So their efforts at debate will end up being, best-case scenario, stupid. Or, worst-case scenario, violent. Neither is interesting to me.
I think this partially explains why elections only work when deciding unimportant questions. If most citizens agree on most things, but seek consensus on, say, how much tax money to spend on schools, then that election can be a useful tool to guide public policy. But if the citizens have divided themselves into two antagonistic groups who agree on almost nothing, and then we have an election regarding the future of Western Civilization, then that election almost can’t be helpful.
Neither group will accept it if the other group wins. The stakes are too high, the topic is too important, and they’re arguing with a seemingly alien group that they view with disdain. In circumstances like that, elections are not unifying. They’re divisive.
This outcome was, unfortunately, perfectly predictable:
As the Democrat party moved further and further left, it moved further and further away from the typical American voter. This left them with four possible options:
One, move back toward the center so they wouldn’t become a regional party unable to win elections outside urban centers. For various reasons, this option was not possible for them.
Two, explain the virtue of their leftism to the voters. Explain how well their ideas have worked around the world, throughout history. This is obviously impossible, so I presume this option was dismissed quickly.
Three, if you can’t build a voting block from American citizens, import a new one. Restrict immigration from countries with similar backgrounds to the United States, full of people who long to try to get rich in the land of opportunity. Then open up immigration from countries that have already implemented leftist ideas. Thus, they have lots of poor people, who are likely to vote for wealth redistribution. This then gives enormous power to the party that seeks to build and manage systems of centralized control. Like Democrats, for example.
The fourth option involves mail-in ballots, media bias, indoctrinating youth, and other means of influencing the outcomes of elections.
So as the Democrat party moved further left, and further from the typical American voter, they converted their ideology into identity, and suddenly elections became too important to leave to chance. They chose options three and four. Although, really, once they had moved that far left, they didn’t really have a choice anymore. They were stuck.
If leftism is virtuous, and Western Civilization is an evil combination of oppression, racism, homophobia, and whatever else is popular, then what else is a devoted leftist to do? What are the ethical limits on their behavior? What outcome is acceptable, beyond the complete destruction of all who disagree with them? After all, they have very little in common with “those people.” There is no more disagreement. Only good vs evil.
Republicans eventually figured out what was happening, and they became more tribal and combative as well. As you might imagine. They responded to a threat by forming internal coalitions and fighting back.
All of which makes debate, at best, uninteresting. But unfortunately, it also makes debate essentially impossible.
In times of peace, nations tend to divide and subdivide, forming smaller homogeneous groups that have much in common and agree on most things. In times of war, nations tend to form broad coalitions - even with those with whom they have little in common - for the purpose of fighting a war and destroying their adversary.
In America, we’re forming broad coalitions and preparing to fight a war. I don’t like how this is going. And I don’t see an easy solution.
Europe is further down this road than we are. But we’re not that far behind. And one of our two major political parties is doing everything it can to catch up.
Diversity is not our greatest strength. Unity is. Not unity of religion or race or whatever. Unity of purpose. A shared understanding of the beauty of Western Civilization in general, and America in particular.
Without that unity of purpose, elections become divisive, and debate becomes impossible. Then, all that matters is destroying your adversary.
It makes me sad.
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.
Discussion (9)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
This is exactly what it's like with my brother-in-law. Textbook Dennis Prager Democrat. Totally lives like a Republican, but gets overly-animated about every single political thing we talk about. Every political conversation is either him getting really angry or giving up instantly. A lot of the time I'm not even making a big political point. So therefore, I don't learn anything, and neither does he. Worthless.
He was on a long boring drive with my sister so he texted me about the gold price. I got him in a long time ago. He's like "why is it going so high?" Uh, it's because we use government to steal from each other. Then the other day we were being politely oblique about political topics, but then he made it clear that he was really mad that Biden didn't get out earlier. My sister was freaked that he was mad about that. My question would be do you really think Kamala Harris knows anything about public policy and has any patience to study it or did you want Bernie, or did you want somebody else? lol Of course we won't get to that level--ever.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Perhaps I have missed the point of your post, but two 80-20, perhaps 90-10 issues are not allowing men in women’s sports/bathrooms/transing the kids and only allowing US citizens to vote. These are very important issues, yet Lefties will still vote for candidates that are in favor of all the LGBTQ insanity and who want illegals to vote. Maybe they are really more interested in power than issues. Help me out.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I'm reminded of churches that split over the choice of carpeting in the sanctuary. The split isn't really about the carpeting, but anything would have been a point of contention between warring parties. Which partially explains people being upset about cleaning up the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The biggest problem about this - i. e. the vast majority of Dem voters continuing to vote for Democrats who either openly advocate for or by their silence of these issues go along with these insane and/or evil policies (the trans stuff, open borders, soft on crime, DEI) is just that. Way too many Dem voters cast their ballot solely on the basis of their feeling morally superior to others which means continuing to vote for the Democrat whether or not the policies they are pursuing have any chance of making life better. The only hope I have is that the Dems will lose enough elections that eventually they will have no choice but to move back somewhere toward the center if they want to regain political power.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Why say partially, it fully explains it along with numerous others, many of which they have gotten members of the judiciary to join in and issue court orders to stop. There is no real contention in these cases, it's just Trump. Sometimes he gives them a little more to go on like he did with the Kennedy Center. Sometimes I wonder if he does this just to make sure so that it can turn into an actual distraction that will occupy many people, including media. Since Trump is frequently right in his moves on bigger issues, like immigration, they really cannot debate because he is operating within and enforcing federal law and that invokes the supremacy clause of the Constitution. I'm surprised at the willingness of elected state officials to support sanctuary locations since that appears to me (IANAL) to be aiding and abetting illegal acts. That surprise includes members of Congress who support violating federal laws that have been enacted by the Congress.
You're seeing five of nine comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.