Many on the Right Have Gone Looney Tunes, Too

 

The Sensible Conservative is no longer so smug about the abundance of common sense on the Right and its deficiency on the Left.

The Covid 19 dispute over getting inoculated has exposed many seemingly responsible conservatives as nuts.

A harsh assessment, yes.  Deserved?  Absolutely.

Consider Fox News.  It’s early morning show and nighttime personalities are fixated on promoting the “anti-vax” perspective.   The issue, to them, is the personal freedom to refuse.  The various mandates from private businesses and governmental entities are consistently damned.  Yet no attention to their purpose is given other than the view that its all about expanding government power over the people.  The fact that the unvaccinated are more likely than those who have gotten their shots to infect others is ignored.  So why the heated resistance?  It is not as if the risk to one’s health in getting the vaccine is significant.  Of course, nothing is risk free, but it pales in comparison with the mortal threat posed by Covid 19.

Perhaps the simple answer, for most, really has nothing to do with health considerations.  It is politics.  If President Biden and the government are in favor of the public getting shots – and ham-handedly directing them to do so – that is enough for many conservatives to react foolishly.  “If he is for it, I’m agin it”.  That response brings to life that old expression of “biting off one’s nose to spite one’s face”.

And one mustn’t forget the irony of President Trump’s successful role in accelerating the development of Covid 19 vaccines with his concurrent promotion of medical quackery.  The latter attracted adherents to be sure.  For them, this was more appealing than the former accomplishments.

Looney tunes indeed comes to mind.

But the silliness, even the deadly foolishness, can be exceeded by those from whom one should least expect such; the mature, intelligent and well-educated.

Dennis Prager hosts an on-line site which features a variety of well- regarded video programs from a conservative vantage point.

So, it was with shock that I heard this older person report that since he wanted to develop a natural immunity to Covid 19, he did not get the vaccine.  Instead, he sought to become infected by deliberately initiating close contact with as many people as he could hug and touch.  Of course, he was unmasked.

He succeeded and did not die.  Congratulations to him on overcoming his intelligence and background to join the ranks of the genuine idiots (and don’t forget that his reckless behavior may have infected – even killed – others).

To my chagrin, The Sensible Conservative must confess that idiocy is not confined to the Left.

Do any sensible people remain?

Guard Rails of American Politics are Gone

 

In days gone by, American politics was dominated by moderation, both in tone and in substance.  Disagreements were usually expressed civilly and those who did not conduct themselves in such a manner were ostracized by members of both parties.

As for substance, Alabama governor George Wallace had a point that there wasn’t a “dime’s worth of difference” between Republicans and Democrats.  Of course, Wallace’s characterization was a bit hyperbolic.  The GOP generally favored restraint of federal spending and authority that the other party fought to expand.  Disagreements may have been heated but generally not personally venomous.  And there was also a consensus that politics should not affect America’s foreign affairs.

The political establishment took steps to maintain the reality of American moderation.

In the 1960s, the John Birch Society attracted a hard right following.  In response, leaders of the Republican Party and the growing Conservative movement, personified by National Review’s William F. Buckley, Jr., denounced the group as irresponsible.  Its support quickly vanished.

Also during the same period, the widespread anti-Vietnam War protests included hardcore elements advising services for the Viet Cong and Communist ideology.  These left-wing extremists coalesced around the 1968 candidacy of Eugene McCarthy.  Their efforts were quashed by the old guard of the Democratic Party, including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Minnesota Senator and Presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey.

Today, the old guard of both sides, which used to rein in excesses on their respective extremes, has disappeared or become intimidated.  Those who used to adjudicate – and enforce – restraint have abdicated their roles.

So the country has recently elected a president who eagerly violated the traditional norms of civil discourse and promoted individuals from the “kook” right such as Steve Bannon.  [As a mark of the differences of the political climate of today from the 80s, National Review’s strenuous efforts to upend Trump’s candidacy were ineffective.]

The election of “moderate” Joe Biden was heralded by many as a return to the tenor of better times.

Not to be.

The Biden Administration and Congressional Democrats instead have either thrown in the towel in posing any resistance to the likes of Bernie Sanders and the AOC “squad” or have revealed their allegiance to their socialist-leaning policies.  Forty-eight Democratic Senators and over two hundred House members have fallen in line to support the left-wing agenda.

It’s easy to say that old guard rails should be rebuilt for the good of the country.  But how?  Perhaps their importance will be recognized as extremism produces the inevitable counter-reaction.

Or not.

 

Why is the Preposterous Taken Seriously?

 

The examples are numerous.  Here are three popular ones:

 

*** Call for tributes and statues of American Founders to be withdrawn and/or torn down because they were morally imperfect (they owned slaves).

 

*** Requiring voters to have IDs is racist.

 

*** A transgender male should be permitted to compete in athletic events confined to women.

 

Not so long ago, none of the positions would have been the proverbial “time of day”.  Rather, the light response would have been “you’re joking, of course,” followed by laughter at those very idea.

The fact that such is no longer a given for many is stark evidence that change is not necessarily positive.

Consider the transgender athlete.  Does he have a “right” to compete against females?  Is it fair?  In this context, those are opposing concerns.  The biological male, as a matter of his sex, as a general matter is endowed by nature with physical abilities – such as strength – that females in general do not possess.  The fact that a male prefers to consider himself as feminine – and wishes he were not born in a male body – does not alter the unfairness of his participation.

And what of his “rights” to be accepted by all on his terms?  Where did that idea come from?  Is any individual entitled to compel others to accept his self-identification or characterization?  What of the rights of others to treat others as they deem appropriate, proper or right and to insist upon fairness?

Lewis Carroll wrote Alice in Wonderland in 1865.  It was a satire and recognized as such.

In 2021, its account would be heralded by many – with justification – as true.

 

The Underestimated Power of Labels

 

Members of a democratic community like America prefer to think of themselves as well-informed about political and governmental policy matters.  But most are not.

Polling constantly shows that large segments of the US. Population are ignorant of the most basic facts of our national government such as the role of the Supreme Court or the number of Senators each state has.  And few keep up with developments in national affairs.  Nonetheless, Americans do have opinions about such matters, ill-informed though they may be.

These observations are not meant to be condemnations of our countrymen, although James Madison, et. al., had high expectations that a self-governing populace would take its role seriously in the formation of opinion on public policy.  It was assumed that contemplation would precede formation.  The present-day reality, of course, is contrary.  Most people are too busy, life is too complicated and full of too many competing elements that did not exist in the 18^th century.

Instead, most Americans today form opinions based on short-cuts.  What is the story’s headline or the internet sites “trending” summary?  Do you like the labels or not?

Those who attach labels to opinions, ideas or organizations, if they are astute, know precisely what they are about.  People are attracted to appealing words and look no further.

The label determines the opinion.

Consider:

          Are you pro-life or pro-choice?  Certainly, the terms both resonate on a superficial basis.  But, of course, behind each label, controversy abounds. But, the relative appeal of each shapes the opinion held.

           How about the Biden Administration’s campaign for massive infrastructure spending?  Unobjectionable on its face:  repairs to roads and bridges come readily to mind.  Yet the pleasing label has been affixed to a variety of social spending measures as well – such as pre-school funding.

           Are you a “progressive”?  To be sure.  Does anyone but Neanderthals (to use the President’s negative label) disagree?  Yet who understands that the political labels is applied to left-wing policy proponents?

 

[It is lamentable that many pundits on the Right use the same term when referring to their left-wing foes.  I recognize that they don’t use the label as an endorsement but why use the superficially positive self-identification language of the other side.]

One can say that people should look beyond labels.  Sorry, hope is not reality.  And few do.  That is why labeling is so very important to the formation of public opinion.

Alas, the Left has proven to be more generally more adept at this than their opposition.