Since the successes of Senator Barry Goldwater, the Republican Party/GOP shifted, steadily moving over decades toward an extremism the outcomes of which we are witnessing today. This is why a self-promoting, brand-image promoting person like D. Trump has been able to use this party by projecting an image that took advantage of general dissatisfaction.
The Republican Party known for its crucial role in liberating the black-American population and in maintaining the Union together shifted toward a new course first when it aligned excessively with big business and then (in the early 1960's) with the Southern States and anti Civil Rights positions of Senator Goldwater. This latter fact is a key observation made by E.J. Dionne Jr., author of "Why the Right went Wrong." And it explains the path taken over the years leading all the way to Donald Trump. And after Goldwater, the tendency to unravel Roosevelt's New Deal social measures grew for many moderate and "neocon" Republicans practically as an obsession, particularly gaining strength as a well-funded militant force in the 1980's.
Reasonable, more moderate Republicanism has been swayed by an overarching sense of 'mission' or almost faith-based cause and this has been exacerbated by a sense of peril since 9-11. Few are willing to question this. And, when many Republicans speak of decreasing taxes (and basically re-instating Trickle-Down Economics), they don't often qualify the fact that the ultra rich are bound to be the greatest beneficiaries, a fact that generates extreme income inequalities, less consumption, a weak, less productive Middle Class, and low wages because earnings are transferred to the wealthiest 1% or even the top 0.01% that may not be as effective to create business, growth and jobs (as Nobel Price economist Joseph Stiglitz demonstrates).
But the system-frustrated, low income, white working class is told that it can be blamed on the Democrats that have traditionally resisted granting these many benefits to the wealthiest. Thus, the system-frustrated, low income, white working class ends up voting against its best interests. It's not that conservatism is obsolete but that it has become a reactionary, dogmatic, pseudo-religious political force endangering progress in many ways. Is it a question of "the party right or wrong" like God, country and a typical closed-minded defense of a mom to her children?
Is it like Moral psychologist Johnathan Haidt shows? Yes, it is but that can be modified with education and the specific steps he also proposes. But thus far, in this polarized environment in which polarization is mostly due to the American right unable to adapt to a more pluralistic present, truth is becoming irrelevant. In this environment -God forbid - D.Trump will convince many that only wining and imposing matters as he seems to implicitly demonstrate and be an example for, affecting not only the low income, low-education frustrated but also intolerant individuals of many kinds resonating with his bossy tactics.
That is gravely dangerous for the continuation of a viable Democracy/Representative Democracy in the XXI Century complexity which requires the capacity for much greater nuance. Through those tendencies, The People are given the wrong example and being de-educated, un-prepared for sustaining liberty and democracy in today's world. That is a form of fascism creeping in. If enough voters are unwilling to open their eyes and are emotionally led to vote for a party "no matter what," then dangerous decisions can be made affecting us all. Another danger is the possibility that that partisan and dogmatic way of making decisions becomes institutionalized and structural.
According to moral and cognitive psychologists like Johnathan Haidt, the scientific observation is that conservatives TEND to emphasize power and power figures, order and control. Phrases like "fighting battles" inspire them as well, but (although there is a place for fighting battles) IT IS OVER-EMPHASIZED TO THE DETRIMENT of social evolution and an intelligent adaptation to current conditions.
I think that these issues also are important and necessary for a viable society. What worries me is that the tendency has been over-emphasized as there is psychological resistance to a culture evolving towards greater inclusivity. More reasonable conservative leaders - still capable of participating today in a healthier manner in necessary conversations and necessary political reforms- need to change strategies because by emphasizing extreme, intolerant positions they have lost political control whilst surrendering it to an impatient, altered, reactive and perhaps cubbish electoral base emotionally overtaken by an over-idealized power figure. Educated, reasonable Republican leaders should take the "bull by the horns" and educate minds away from diatribe.
As E.J. Dionne, Jr. suggests, reasonable Republicans should listen to that influential Irish Conservative thinker Edmund Burke who in various ways emphasized that, in order to conserve, sometimes you have to embrace change.
No comments:
Post a Comment