If a Point is Made in the Forest and Nobody Hears It, Was It Ever Even Made?
People may have noticed - or maybe they haven’t - that I’ve been putting out less work in recent months. While I don’t write exclusively about politics, a central theme of political moderation feeds most of my writing, even that which is not directly political.
This has become more difficult during the expanding polarization that is the current landscape of this election campaign season. There are many comparatively moderate readers of this forum, to be sure, but the vast majority who fight tooth and nail in a race to the extremes - those who we’d most like to reach, and who would be best served by some exposure to moderate views - are historically also the ones most likely to eschew even looking at them. Forget about changing their minds; most reject the prospect of even reading or listening to opinions that don’t conform neatly with their entrenched positions.
There is no room for nuance, and disagreement is cause for war.
Moderates are often forced to hide in the shadows while the extreme machines duke it out in a never-ending see-saw battle for supremacy. Many of us want to disappear deep into the woods, away from all the chaos, and let the crazies just kill each other off. But of course, it’s not that simple, and there’s no real hiding from it - politics have long tentacles that reach far and wide into every nook and cranny to affect everyone, whether they try to avoid them or not.
Our thoughts are not only subject to criticism but are also used to acceptably stamp us as creatures of some specific anti-social realm. Liberals are all “loopy identity politicians”. Conservatives are all “fascists”. Centrists are all “fence sitters” who need to pick a side.
I’m tired of picking sides. My side is what’s best for me, my family, and the majority of everyone else, and it’s been known to fluctuate with the times. Of course, I have core values because they work for me. But I also understand that they’re not the same as yours. Crazy concept, huh?
It’s hard to take either side seriously when they hypocritically ignore their own shortcomings which mirror those they demonize in their opponents. Extremism dismisses humanity’s imperfections. With few exceptions (like Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, Mitt Romney, Bobby Kennedy, John McCain, etc.), politicians seem unable to think for themselves, cut against the grain, and run the risk of defying their parties. This is not to say I support these specific politicians on policy, but that they are among the few who’ve dared to really speak their minds. Most are not like this, and neither are their supporters or the majority of the media, which explains why public confidence in it is at an all-time low.
Even if Republicans agree with his policy proposals, how can a group that espouses family values practically deify a man with Trump’s track record? Choosing him as a lesser evil I understand, or even as one who’s willing to take the slings and arrows necessary for change, but to his followers he’s like the fifth Beatle.
Even if Democrats agree with their policy proposals, how can a group which espouses women’s rights vilify Trump after he supposedly cheated with a porn star while a private citizen, whereas Bill Clinton was treated like a rock star using his political clout to sexually abuse numerous women when in office? And further vilify Republican women for supporting Trump while Hillary Clinton, who is celebrated for her promotion of feminism, gets a pass for covering for her husband and blaming his victims?
Extreme people happily wear blinders when it’s convenient.
Humans need to learn to mind their own business. Conservatives used to reject gay marriage (as did many “Liberals” - both Clinton and Obama initially voted against it). Fortunately, most except true extremists and those with deeply religious issues have come around to realize it’s not the blight on their lives that they feared. Why does anyone care? With few exceptions (if you’re a gay conservative), it doesn’t affect you.
Liberals are willing to accept countless policy shortcomings from their party to achieve the attached pork of issues like allowing men who identify as women to compete against them in sporting events. Again, why does anyone care to fight for this? With few exceptions (if you’re a biological man interested in competing against women), it doesn’t affect you.
Our extremes are willing to let the world burn while fanatical enemies plot our destruction, as long as the party that backs their pet causes retains power. Today, the Left will accept rampant governmental overreach and spending, higher taxes, DEI hiring practices, unchecked immigration, poor job growth, shocking inflation, excessive entitlements, attacks on our allies, a President working out deals with foreign agents to enrich his family at our expense, crippling costs for “green” incentives which will have no measurable effect unless they can get Asia to follow suit, being lied to about the cognitive condition of their President, and a back-room party deal to replace the failing candidate they voted for in the primaries with one that absolutely no one voted for. They find this all acceptable as long as they can achieve unlimited abortion-on-demand, radical ideological takeover, and Socialist “equity” by beating Trump.
I can’t imagine being such a sheep that my party leaders could unilaterally replace the candidate I elected, and that I would just be okay with it. But nary a peep has been heard from Democrats.
I don’t know if it’s worth talking about anymore when so many people are content hiding their heads in holes and ostriching from the collapsing world around them.
Zephareth Ledbetter’s latest book, “A White Man’s Perspectives on Race and Racism - Rational Thoughts on an Irrational World”, is available cheap at smashwords.com/books/view/1184004
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
"How can a group that espouses family values practically deify a man with Trump’s track record?" Trump is not deified, but he clearly shows he supports our Constitutional rights and protections. I'm not looking for someone who can pass a purity test, I want someone who will protect my right to self-determination, the right of me and my husband to live our marriage as we see fit. The other side wants to be my nanny and has also been vaporizing fundamentals, like parental rights and a woman's prerogative to have physical privacy from males, to say "NO!" to a male. The other side attacks, making law and policy to jam themselves between parents and children. It's the dems who have made Trump appear to be a deity. Compared to what they offer, this bombastic womanizer is a deity.
"politicians seem unable to think for themselves, cut against the grain, and run the risk of defying their parties. This is not to say I support these specific politicians on policy, but that they are among the few who’ve dared to really speak their minds."
I find it interesting that you didn't include Donald Trump in that particular list of politicians despite the fact that defying the Republican establishment and speaking his mind are very much characteristic of him. You described these traits you nominally admire in politicians even when you don't agree with them, but then you express confusion at why this particular politician you don't agree with who has those traits is so admired by so many others. This suggests a bit of a blind spot on your part regarding Donald Trump.
It doesn't suggest one on my part. I strongly dislike the record of Trump's personal life. I would love to live in an America where commiting adultery was considered disqualifying for public office. Hell, I'd love to see that put into law. It's a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so I don't see why other public servants get a pass on it, especially the Commander in Chief. Unfortunately, I don't live in that world, I live in this one, where both Parties nominated adulterers. I always voted for someone else in the primaries, but here we are anyway.
I remember the entire Bill Clinton scandal, I remember my outrage, and I remember every Democrat I knew brushing it off with some variation of "We elect a President for his policies, not his personal life". I warned them all then that the standard you set is the standard you get and that precedent would come back to bite them. So here we are: "I'm running for President, not Pope" and "Grab em by the p*ssy" aren't any less outrageous to me, but I must admit to a certain degree of schadenfreude at them finally all sharing my outrage.
Too bad it's too late to matter. They removed that guardrail and things went downhill precisely as predicted. We've reached a point where personal character is more often considered a liability in a politician than an asset. Nobody wants to send an innocent lamb to the slaughter, so voters see the need for a snake to navigate the swamp. Have you heard of the Godzilla theory of politics? When everything is decided by a battle between monsters, you just want the biggest monster to be on your side. So embattled Evangelicals find themselves reminded that even King David had an affair and that God used a pagan King, Cyrus the Great, to free his people from captivity in Babylon. Desperate people look for hope wherever they can find it.