Dear America,
I admire David Brooks, the NY Times op-ed columnist for his erudition and his fairness of mind. He's basically a mainstream Republican with a wide tolerant streak in place of the intolerant sanctimony boasted of by most members of his party. He's actually almost a Democrat by virtue of much of what he says and his repudiation of that portion of the Republican creed that smacks of intolerance, and in consequence of his aversion to that kind of feigned piety that most Republican wreaks of. I take his criticism of what appears to most pundits these days as the Democrats wandering, maundering and looking in all the wrong places for a route back to partisan hegemony to be constructive rather than tendentious. I think he's right that the Democrats' quest for a new creed of their own is not a productive expenditure of energy, as I also opined after Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election but lost the presidency to Trump and Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party. It was they who, in a misguided attempt to prevent the ascendance of a populist like Trump, created the electoral college to be the intermediary between the people and national leadership by virtue of its intended composition of social-economic leaders, presumed to be endowed by prudence rather than prejudices and superstitions. The best laid plans...but never mind that now. My purpose today is to point the Democrats in another direction since I believe that the Democrats' mantras and the tenets of the Democratic creed already point in the right direction, even though it was unavailing in 2024.
As in 2016, I don't think the election was the moral war it has been touted to be. There are Christians other than Evangelicals. There are conservatives in The Senate other than Ted "the Trump apostate" Cruz and representatives in The House other than Marjorie Taylor Greene, both of whom seem to dissemble in the name of a not insignificant minority of Trump-style reactionaries in our congress. And similarly, there are Trump voters other than those who think that supporting those who are without is "woke" charity rather than secular humanism. In other words, there are enough voters available to elect congressional surrogates for those of us who don't eschew liberal causes because we don't like paying taxes. But there is something with which we have to confront those opposing Republicans and Independents that they should consider before they cast their next votes, and it's this: regardless of your creed, it is your ethos you should follow while rejecting the "conservative" ethos and its consequences. To put it simply, you tolerate the conservative creed because your ethos is democratic and tolerant of difference, whereas the conservative ethos is intolerant of difference and democracy as demonstrated by their political positions regarding our right to subscribe to our creed and live by it. We humanists, whether secular or theistic, may believe that a woman has the right to pursue an abortion but we don't insist that others have them. We don't say that helping others isn't worth paying taxes for, while they say, like Marie Antoinette, let them eat...or not: we don't care. We say that those who are different from us should have the same rights we have. They say, you can't love just anyone. You have to engage only in the kind of love they approve of. We say the people who lead us should be honest and upright, whereas they say so what if our president considers his ability to capitalize on bankruptcy and litigious coercion to be indicia of his superiority.
What I'm getting at is that we should vote on something other than the prosaic issues on which the conservative political contingent insists on as dispositive of whether or not you are a true American. Just as I don't get to assess their allegiance to our nation, they do not get to assess ours. They may think that waving big flags from the back of pick-up trucks is tantamount to patriotism, but I disagree. That flag is as much mine, even though I don't flaunt it, as it is theirs...yours. And what makes us Americans isn't what we flaunt. It is our national creed: the belief in truth, justice, tolerance, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When I was a kid I created what I called the "mirocosmic theory." It is simple. Each of us lives in a sequestered space within which we should be able to do as we please as long as we don't hurt anyone. But when our spheres of influence intersect with others, we have to respect one another's liberties. I still believe that. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...they are what counts, not flags or political labels. That's how I vote, and I urge you, America, to do the same, and what will be will be, but rightly so.
Your friend,
Mike
I admire David Brooks, the NY Times op-ed columnist for his erudition and his fairness of mind. He's basically a mainstream Republican with a wide tolerant streak in place of the intolerant sanctimony boasted of by most members of his party. He's actually almost a Democrat by virtue of much of what he says and his repudiation of that portion of the Republican creed that smacks of intolerance, and in consequence of his aversion to that kind of feigned piety that most Republican wreaks of. I take his criticism of what appears to most pundits these days as the Democrats wandering, maundering and looking in all the wrong places for a route back to partisan hegemony to be constructive rather than tendentious. I think he's right that the Democrats' quest for a new creed of their own is not a productive expenditure of energy, as I also opined after Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election but lost the presidency to Trump and Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party. It was they who, in a misguided attempt to prevent the ascendance of a populist like Trump, created the electoral college to be the intermediary between the people and national leadership by virtue of its intended composition of social-economic leaders, presumed to be endowed by prudence rather than prejudices and superstitions. The best laid plans...but never mind that now. My purpose today is to point the Democrats in another direction since I believe that the Democrats' mantras and the tenets of the Democratic creed already point in the right direction, even though it was unavailing in 2024.
As in 2016, I don't think the election was the moral war it has been touted to be. There are Christians other than Evangelicals. There are conservatives in The Senate other than Ted "the Trump apostate" Cruz and representatives in The House other than Marjorie Taylor Greene, both of whom seem to dissemble in the name of a not insignificant minority of Trump-style reactionaries in our congress. And similarly, there are Trump voters other than those who think that supporting those who are without is "woke" charity rather than secular humanism. In other words, there are enough voters available to elect congressional surrogates for those of us who don't eschew liberal causes because we don't like paying taxes. But there is something with which we have to confront those opposing Republicans and Independents that they should consider before they cast their next votes, and it's this: regardless of your creed, it is your ethos you should follow while rejecting the "conservative" ethos and its consequences. To put it simply, you tolerate the conservative creed because your ethos is democratic and tolerant of difference, whereas the conservative ethos is intolerant of difference and democracy as demonstrated by their political positions regarding our right to subscribe to our creed and live by it. We humanists, whether secular or theistic, may believe that a woman has the right to pursue an abortion but we don't insist that others have them. We don't say that helping others isn't worth paying taxes for, while they say, like Marie Antoinette, let them eat...or not: we don't care. We say that those who are different from us should have the same rights we have. They say, you can't love just anyone. You have to engage only in the kind of love they approve of. We say the people who lead us should be honest and upright, whereas they say so what if our president considers his ability to capitalize on bankruptcy and litigious coercion to be indicia of his superiority.
What I'm getting at is that we should vote on something other than the prosaic issues on which the conservative political contingent insists on as dispositive of whether or not you are a true American. Just as I don't get to assess their allegiance to our nation, they do not get to assess ours. They may think that waving big flags from the back of pick-up trucks is tantamount to patriotism, but I disagree. That flag is as much mine, even though I don't flaunt it, as it is theirs...yours. And what makes us Americans isn't what we flaunt. It is our national creed: the belief in truth, justice, tolerance, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When I was a kid I created what I called the "mirocosmic theory." It is simple. Each of us lives in a sequestered space within which we should be able to do as we please as long as we don't hurt anyone. But when our spheres of influence intersect with others, we have to respect one another's liberties. I still believe that. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...they are what counts, not flags or political labels. That's how I vote, and I urge you, America, to do the same, and what will be will be, but rightly so.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment