- - Sunday, May 15, 2016

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

As Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote in an essay titled “Intellect,” “God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please — you can never have both.” Rarely in our nation’s recent political history has Emerson’s instructive insight seemed more apropos.

Those opposing President Obama’s legacy have found themselves locked into a stalemate of both anger and resentment that has found its expression in deep internal conflicts within the Republican Party. House Speaker Paul Ryan, who by custom would be chairman at the Republican Convention to take place this July in Cleveland, has gone as far as to doubt publicly whether he’ll support presumptive party nominee Donald Trump. Some Trump supporters, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, have bitterly chastised Mr. Ryan (and others who have expressed similar doubts) and promised retribution at the polls.

Democrats looking across the aisle at the acrimonious debate have hardly restrained their expressions of smug glee. As commenters on the various social media sites have noted — it is the Republican Party’s own fault for failing to stop the rise of such a controversial and potentially divisive candidate.

The nominee himself has no reservations about challenging, not only Republican dogma, but settled U.S. foreign policy and economic policy. He has openly flirted with restructuring U.S. debt — saying, in essence, that if America enters an economic downturn, it would be an opportunity to “make a deal.” Mr. Trump has also challenged long-standing U.S. foreign policy, questioning the ongoing need for such the NATO defense pact in light of the demise of the Soviet Union, citing America’s footing the cost of military commitments in far-flung regions with little discernable benefit to Americans. He has both opposed and supported raising the nation’s minimum wage, before most recently punting the issue off with “let the states decide.”

While the likely Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton has largely campaigned on the solidifying and extending the Obama legacy — i.e., more of the same — Mr. Trump has offered something that sounds different, but that at times lacks coherence or any decipherable set of unifying principles. His message thus far has been largely aimed at a Republican establishment that has failed to advance a pro-conservative legislative agenda despite holding majorities in both the House and Senate.

And so here we are as a nation at this juncture, caught in a maelstrom between truth and repose. Liberals find creature comfort via their party advancing a liberal social agenda — homosexual marriage, transgender rights, and a legislated minimum wage. Republicans are dealing with a potential nominee who seems to believe that everything, even core conservative principles, is up for negotiation.

As a largely conservative party, Republicans find Mr. Trump’s infinite oscillation around economic and social issues to be deeply disconcerting and potentially disruptive. It is difficult for many in the party to imagine a path toward reclaiming ‘greatness’ — as the popular Trump campaign slogan urges — without reverting to the core set of principles that many see as having made America great in the first place: family values, fiscal discipline, small government, and individual liberty.

Emerson further asserts, while repose gains us “rest, commodity, and reputation,” it tends to “shut the door of truth.” Here is the key point around which the current U.S. election is evolving. We cannot rest on our laurels, or seek to find accommodation in old modes of thinking while at the same time trying to restore our nation to greatness. We cannot undergo a social experiment of rebuilding while at the same time clinging to decaying ideas, social structures, and political institutions. We can either have truth or repose — but not both.

The truth we are describing here does not refer to specific platforms or claims by any of the candidates — after all, political speech is given to wild exaggeration by its nature. What we are referring to is the process by which we arrive at our choices in the first place. What’s working and what’s not? Why or why not? These are questions that those of us who do not have the option to engage in smug self-adulation are asking ourselves.

In a sense, we are entering an existential crisis in society in which it has become clear that America’s new greatness may no longer entail being the referee of global geopolitics. The world turns, time and events advance without our consent or control, and ideas from bygone eras may need to be re-examined. And while the search for truth may be uncomfortable, it is the most stabilizing and conservative principle we can call upon to aid us in adapting to an increasingly turbulent world.

Armstrong Williams is a national syndicated columnist and sole owner/manager of Howard Stirk Holdings LLC TV.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide