“If there is hope, it lies in the proles.” – Winston Smith, 1984 by George Orwell
To me, this has always been one of the most depressing lines in all of English literature. If you’ve read the book, you know that this line is not hopeful, despite its literal content. I’ve always heard it in my head as “whatever meager glimmer of anything but brutal oppression might remain, it’s with the commoners.” It’s a resigned throwaway, not a rousing sentiment.
It’s certainly easy to feel that way about American politics these days. “Not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties, a friend of mine is fond of claiming. There are foul, fetid rivers of corporate money flowing through both of them. They both seize personal liberties like smack-addicted pit fiends.
Theoretically, it doesn’t matter whether there’s an R or a D after the name.
So maybe you decide you’re a Libertarian. I decided that, not too long ago. I wasn’t a perfect fit with them either, but I was closer than with anyone else. It was the purest ideological political identification I ever had. And you know what I observed about ideological purity in politics? It’s lonely.
Practically, it does matter whether there’s an R or a D after the name.
As in, if you have any hope of effecting change in our dear republic, you need to cast your lot with one bunch of jackasses or the other and start agitating in the direction you want to go.
How would you describe what the Tea Party movement has done to the Republicans, if not in that way? The breathless fantasies of their political opponents that these Tea Party lunatics would run third-party candidates all over the place and split the conservative vote notwithstanding, they’ve modified the Republicans far more than they’ve done anything else.
Ladies and gentlemen, Michele Bachmann is a legitimate candidate for President of the United States. If you don’t tally that as substantial evidence of Tea Party-generated change in the Republican Party since W.’s “compassionate conservatism,” then you’ll please forgive me for finding you grossly inattentive.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not arguing for any particular candidate or position in this post. I’m advocating for the demonstrable effects of the mechanism. Look at the respective states of the Democrats and Republicans. On which side is there meaningful internal debate? On which side would you be more likely to find spirited discussion, as opposed to lockstep conformity?
Are you capable of holding your nose a bit, jumping in with a major party, and beginning to influence it in ways you want?
Or is it better to strut your philosophical purity, at the near-total expense of your efficacy?
You might also like:
- The Republican Accountability Project is exactly what we need
The Republican Accountability Project came to my attention this morning. Quoting the front page of t… - BoWilliams.com and politics are getting a divorce
It’s time to steer BoWilliams.com away from politics. I don’t intend to take any posts that are alre… - Obama accidentally tells the truth
A little honesty on Obamacare, however fleeting, is welcome: You know, I’m glad President Obama is p… - The Republicans left me, and I finally realized it
One of the most touching scenes for me in A Beautiful Mind is when Dr. Nash bends down and says a te… - Republicans, we must have the action we are promised
I understand that not all of my readership is into what I have to say politically, and I sympathize….
I’ve always identified myself as a Conservative, not a Republican. A follower of an ideology, not a sycophant attached to a political party. And I still maintain that definition.
However, the pragmatist in me recognizes that the establishment has to be dealt with as it is at the time, not as I wish it to be, and that is why I press certain buttons v. others in the voting booth.
There are many ways to affect change. I don’t see it as “holding my nose” and choosing the lesser of two evils. I do see it as selecting that option that is most closely aligned with my end goal, since that is the likeliest way of getting the mission completed.
There is no perfect solution, as this is not a perfect world. Perfection does not exist. We make do with what we have. Anyone who things otherwise is fooling themselves.
“Pragmatist in me,” indeed. Probably I wish I’d used “pragmatism” instead of “practicality” in this post’s title now.
I dunno. My handy-dandy online dictionary defines “pragmatism” as “an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.”
Kinda sounds all-inclusive, iff’n ya ask me.