A year has passed since the publication of my latest novel, Section 5, and the reaction of readers has been most interesting. Generally, they have not liked the book, and in particular, they have hated the central character, Rodney Macefield. One friend, who is an admitted conservative, thought Rodney was almost a cartoonlike person. So, there you have it. Section 5 will never be seen as a popular work of literature such as Gone With the Wind.
But, I had not intended to draw a portrait of a sensitive soul or to create a heroic, happy end story. Rather, Section 5, is intended to show what happens when a singular political ideology becomes dominant in governmental halls of power. This story presses to its logical end and the results are explosively obvious. If anyone doubts that my scenario could become possible, I suggest a cursory review of history. Germany’s Hitler, Russia’s Stalin, Japan’s Hirohito, and today’s Hamas make for a vivid list of horrors. Such can happen here in America if restraint is not applied. I chose the Republican side of this example of what could happen, but truly, a similar story could be written about liberal extremism.
Thinking about Republicanism since the publication of Section 5, has led me to wonder about the motivations of its ideology. Why do they act as they do? Why are they so adamant about confronting their antagonists: the Democratic Party? For the rank and file Republicans, it can’t just be a contrary drive for power, because without a vision, power alone is meaningless. Furthermore, for the average Republicans, access to real power such as described in Section 5 is simply not available to them. So, what are Republicans all about? Why do they vote for the candidates that they do? This blog suggests three ideas.
The first of these ideas is a belief that life is a serious business. Getting ahead towards survival is paramount. Consequently, there is little room for charity. Ann Rynd, a leading inspiration of Tea Partiers, expounded this central idea in her novels, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Her childhood struggles for survival during the turmoils of the Russian Revolution would certainly have taught her that self-survival alone is paramount. Consequently, when interviewed about the subject of charity to others, she stated: “ My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty.”[1]
Seen against this background, Democratic ideas of social security and Medicare all smack of charity which is not, to Republicans, a moral duty of government. They look back on American frontier history as our example of rugged individualism where the only reliable resource for survival was a steely reliance on one’s self. No one else was available despite the portrayals of warm-hearted help in western movies. Therefore, how little room for concern for others can exist among these people? Republicans think, “Very little.”
The second impulse of Republicans is an absolute belief in the “pursuit of happiness.” This phrase leads the opening sentence of our Declaration of Independence. Before then, it was used by John Locke who believed that the central role of government was the protection of private property.[2] Ironically, in his time, those espousing this idea were considered to be “liberals.” That is, individual liberty to pursue one’s fortunes without reference to feudal heredity was a new liberal movement.[3] Government’s role was therefore to be focused on this ideal.
Thus, when Democrats advocate worker protection, ecological constraints and higher taxes, Republicans view them as constraints on their natural right to pursue happiness. Perhaps it’s not too much to say that even if a governmental policy could be proven as beneficial, these “liberals” would object saying that it is, in principle, a violation of their right pursue happiness, and so, they would oppose it. We see this today. ExxonMobil fought the science of global warming for years as an unfounded idea. The reasons were obvious: actions that could be taken to reduce this threat was seen as an infringement of their right to do business. It was only when the possibility arose that scientific forecasts were right and that ExxonMobil might be held liable for saying otherwise, did they begin to modify their stance. [4] In essence, ExxonMobil’s antagonism about global warming and governmental interference hadn’t changed, only their legal defenses.
The final aspect of Republican ideology is a Calvinist theory that “ is a concept in theology, sociology, economics and history which emphasizes hard work, frugality and diligence as a constant display of a person’s salvation in the Christian faith [lies] in contrast to the focus upon religious attendance, confession, and ceremonial sacrament in the Catholic tradition.”[5] First promoted by the German sociologist, Max Weber, in 1904, this idea now permeates Republican beliefs such that those who aren’t wealthy are inherently a lesser people. They have not been destined by God to greatness but rather to evil. Numerous examples follow that illustrate this attitude. Charles Murray wrote in his book, The Bell Curve, that minorities are intellectually and morally inferior. Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comment about the American populace being lazy clearly exposed this attitude of inferiority. Jared Bernstein’s blog comment accurately reflected the Republican idea that “all you have to do to get a job is want a job.”[6] By implication, those without a job are, by definition, people of lesser moral character. Therefore, going back to their attitudes about charity, one doesn’t do that for undeserving people. One doesn’t create public policy for undeserving people.
Of course, these few paragraphs are a broad swipe and in detail don’t pertain to everyone. But, I believe there is enough truth in them to warrant discussion. Section 5 was my attempt to generate such a conversation. Does anyone have any comments?
[1] Charity, Ann Rynd Lexicon. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html. 20 July 2014. [2] Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness. 20 July 2014. [3] Liberalism, Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism. 20 July 2014. [4] Coll, Steven. Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power. New York, NY: The Penguin Press. 2012. Kindle Page: 6130-46. [5] Protestant Work Ethic. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic. 2 August 2014. [6] Pitts, Leonard. “A Republican with Serious Things to Say About Poverty.” The Herald Mail Opinion. Hagerstown, MD. 31 July 2014. Page A4.