Page Two: No Virtue

There was a time when this column would more often be about politics than any other topic. But times have changed, and not for the better. Never have I been so vain as to believe that either the purpose or consequence of what is written in this column changes minds. I've always been well aware that is not really an option. Some people read opinion columns so that they can disagree with them, almost enjoying how stupid the author is, especially in the light of their own superior intelligence. Others read columns they mostly agree with, looking for reassurance while being intellectually challenged by the parts where their views diverge. They enjoy thinking those through, as they do when encountering ideas and positions that they haven't thought about much at all. Then there are those who read just because they are intrigued by others' opinions, regardless of their personal take on the content.

When I listen, watch, or read most of the hard-right commentators, often it is for the perverse pleasure of being outraged by some of the demagoguery on display as they manipulate information to provoke outrage. Other times, it's for the sheer pleasure of knowing either that they are lying so overtly that they must know it (Sean Hannity) or that they are so mean-spirited and intellectually dishonest as to be a cancerous pollutant (Ann Coulter). Now, I'm sure there are those who disagree with much or all that I have to say who nevertheless believe I've just done honest reportage on my own style and content.

The one area where I claim to differ consistently from many other columnists is that I don't believe in shutting down the voices I disagree with, nor even those I detest. The major problems this country faces are mostly real enough that just shutting up those with opinions other than mine is not going to do very much to solve them.

Unfortunately, across the political spectrum, no matter the differing opinions held, a commonly accepted standard seems to have become that holding fast to one's views is the greatest virtue. The idea of compromising on controversial issues is out of the question. Moving even a little from one's deeply held conviction is regarded as some twisted combination of corruption, selling out, and surrendering to the views of others. Concurrently, those unwilling to compromise, who stick hard and fast to their views, are regarded as heroic.

Even though I admire much about the late Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, untold damage has been done by that legendary quote from his 1964 nomination acceptance speech: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" Truth be told, it is sometimes hard to argue with that sentiment. But not always, as we'll address in just a bit.

Anchored by a strong revulsion to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler during World War II, Goldwater's sentiment has all too often become the battle flag under which those of very different ideologies ride.

We live in a time of munificent self-congratulation, as passionate political partisans of all stripes declare themselves to be freedom-loving patriots and thereby imply any who hold different views are groveling, wimpy, anti-American traitors aching for enslavement. These true believers are so happily self-anointed that they need do nothing to prove their heroism and patriotism except to declare it. Almost to a person, they know that they would have belonged to the French Resistance if they had lived in that country during World War II and that they would never grovel before or negotiate appeasement with those they opposed. Armchair generals and quarterbacks are annoying; armchair heroes and patriots are not just nauseating but also dangerous.

Regardless of their particular ideological bent, most declare their passionate and undying allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, none more than the "patriots," as they shred their clothes and whip their backs in despair over the many indignities and violations foisted upon that noble document by all but themselves.

In a truly intellectual embrace of semiotics and the writings of Roland Barthes and Christian Metz, what almost all of these people are advocating is a reader-authored constitution – meaning that their interpretation, melded to fit their personal politics as well as ideological and religious beliefs, is the true document.

The U.S. Constitution as written and defended and explained through the Federalist Papers (published to advocate its passage) is not the document about which they are speaking. If they were first to carefully read the document and the papers and then complement that by extensively reading the writings of the Founding Fathers about the differences between their versions and the actual constitutional specifics, intent should become quite clear.

Instead, most of those who read what the Founding Fathers actually thought usually find themselves gleefully stopping very early on when they encounter Thomas Jefferson's statement, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." They rejoice not only in agreement but also in knowing that Jefferson wrote this specifically for them – which clearly indicates that the great Jefferson totally and harmoniously shares their beliefs. Therefore, why should they bother to read any more?

The Constitution was written to lay out a governmental process by which all citizens could participate in ruling the nation, no matter how radically different their beliefs or even how violently they dislike those convictions held by others. It is a document that privileges compromise while in every way it is designed to derail any one ideology from coming to dominate the government.

One can say many things about the Republicans' recent childish tantrum and brazen economic malfeasance. The one inarguable point is that from tea party members to religious-right conservatives, they violated the meaning of and acted in opposition to the very ideas that are the core foundation of the Constitution.

OK, now cutting back from these various tangents, let's again visit Goldwater. If we take his statement as rarely applying in only the most unique of circumstances, then there might even be something noble about it. Certainly, it reads well: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Unfortunately, however, it has become a widely held and passionately believed-in position. It is almost the daily Lord's Prayer, if you will, of concerned Americans dealing with mundane political issues. Irrespective of how minor and insignificant or major and massive those issues are, citizens of all different ideologies and beliefs recite and apply it, convinced that not only does it anoint them but that it also applies exclusively to their politics.

It may be inspired, may seem noble, might actually get the blood flowing, but the core idea is the antithesis of constitutional government.

Almost any and all of my opinions and perspectives on contemporary politics start and end at the Constitution. Since in crazed times such as these, when no matter how often the document is evoked, it is even more regularly ignored, I find that all too often I am just repeating the same things over and over. Redundant and repetitious, my lament becomes nothing more than a familiar but annoying drone.

Consequently, for the sake of us all, I've tried to hold my tongue rather than comment on the current political situation. It has become a dishonest charade of a Punch-and-Judy puppet show, aimed at appealing to the most juvenile of sensibilities without actually tackling any real issues, no matter how pressing and consequential.

Better I write of great films like The Wind and the Lion or advocate the brilliance of the bloody Lone Wolf and Cub Japanese samurai films, or again insist you haven't really scratched the surface of American film if you haven't seen Jonathan Demme's Citizens Band (aka Handle With Care) and Something Wild than repetitiously denounce the current state of American politics, thus necessarily bemoaning the abandonment and desecration of the Constitution.