It’s been a while since I reviewed my novels, but of them, Section 5 is the one my readers have liked the least. Rodney Macefield is a character who is universally hated. Reviews about him and his story say, “It’s so black.” Well, people, if I were to write his story today, I’d make it even blacker. Sorry about that, and here’s why.
Rodney is an extreme example of the conservative movement. But, he is also a caricature of any extremist. I could have written Section 5 with an ultra-liberal character. In either case, the result would have been the same. When someone or party can take absolute control of a nation and governs from a single point of view, the results are the same. There is totalitarianism accompanied by terror. Pure and simple.
My critics agree with that proposition, but also add, “It can’t happen here.” Say that to the millions of Jews, Russian peasants and Chinese who died in the World War II era. Ask what has happened to millions of people since then. Argentines have disappeared. Africans have been butchered. Muslims massacred. The list goes on, and most of these people would have said, “It can’t happen here.” But, it can as I outline in the novel.
Section 5 relates how our nation has become so divided that politics is less about governance for the common weal and more about attaining power. The Right thinks that Lefties are effete eggheads intent on overturning our American way of life. The Left sees their opponents as knuckle-dragging cave-men. More importantly, note my use of labels. These are the shortcut terms that are used in place of ideas that should be reviewed. People and ideas become objects of derision. By contrast, President Regan and Speaker Tip O’Neill saw each other as colleagues. They differed greatly on their ideals, but they could talk civilly to one another and develop solutions to problems.
Such is not the case today. The newspapers are full of articles about intransigence, which is a fancy word for bullheadedness. My local newspaper today, 8 August 2018, has two articles about Russian meddling in our elections. The first one analyzed the facts concerning the meeting of the President’s son and son-in-law with a Russian attorney. The second one talked of Trump voters ready to discount any findings by Special Counsel Mueller. One said, “People are surprised they [Russians] meddled; I’d be more surprised if they didn’t.”
To balance the scales, Hilary Clinton’s scandal about her careless handling of sensitive e-mail on her personal server has occupied many front pages of the news. The latest is an article posted yesterday in the Canada Free Press. In it, the Press reported five new classified messages have been found. Like Trump promoters, efforts are made to minimize the effects of her problem. One report said, “ Clinton committed no crime because she didn’t “knowingly” share classified materials.” Frankly, that’s hard to believe given Ms. Clinton’s many years in public service.
After reviewing these scandals and others that are being paraded across the front pages, I have a novel idea. How about public support demanding thorough investigations without political hype? Then, only facts will be used to determine whether wrongdoing was done and if so, let justice prevail. Will this possibly ruin careers? Will it hurt political movements? Will it be painful for citizens to read about their elected leaders’ wrongdoings? Yes, to all these questions. But what is better? Political chicanery that breeds cynicism and a loss of faith in the founding principles of our nation, or ruination and pain accompanying a return to justice being meted out under the scales of law?
Frankly, I’m actually hesitant to ask this question for fear that corruption has become too thoroughly soaked into the fabric of our American culture. What say ye, my readers?