Rand Paul: Head-stomping and the tyranny of virtue

By R.K. Barry

The tyranny of virtue is a concept usually associated with the behaviour of certain figures in the French Revolution who were so convinced of the moral rectitude of their mission that they could justify any atrocity in its defence -- hence The Terror, and its most effective tool, the guillotine. 

The violence that we have seen exacted on political opponents from associates of Republican Senate nominees Rand Paul (Kentucky) and Joe Miller (Alaska) may not be prelude to a bloodbath, but it is very disturbing.

Absolute certainty has always frightened me. It doesn't mean I'm not principled; I'd like to think I am. It's only that I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong about certain things or, more gently put, my perspective could be improved by new information or the force of a better argument.

I'm just not seeing a lot of openness on the part of conservatives that they might occasionally be wrong or that, if evidence were provided, they could modify their views. 

In fact, they don't seem much interested at all in rational argumentation or providing reasons for the opinions they hold. What seems to motivate them instead is the strongly held belief in the moral rectitude of their mission -- a mission that is mostly about embracing a set of values that are impervious to reason. It's about constructing a world in which they would feel more comfortable -- as unconnected to reality as that might be. As we know, it's about "taking their country back." 

I am reminded of the infamous comment made by Indiana state senator Earl Fredrick Landgrebe, who, in defence of Richard Nixon during the Watergate hearings, said, "Don't confuse me with the facts."

What we are living through in America today is most emphatically not about the facts. 

Sam Tanenhaus, in his book The Death of Conservatism, makes the by-now-familiar argument that conservatives feel that their "culture has been taken away from them, that America has been robbed of its values by liberals or they would say socialists like Barack Obama."

It's a politics of resentment, anger and revenge... We're seeing a politics of vengeance now from the right. When Rush Limbaugh said he wanted Barack Obama to fail, he was not just spitting out a provocative line, he was actually handing out a kind of marching orders to the right, which they now seem to be following.

As in the French Revolution, it is the need to punish enemies and traitors that leads to the tyranny of virtue. It is the view that there are those who are right and those who are wrong and heads are going to have to roll to protect the purity of the message. There can be no middle ground.

So we are left with a pretty odd dynamic: progressives want to talk policy, while conservatives want to crush, quite literally, progressives.

When it is pointed out that Republican Senate nominees Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle, along with Sarah Palin (among others), are after all not very bright, conservatives come close to responding by saying, "what's your point?" For conservative true believers, it's not about how much their standard bearers know or how well they debate; it's about the values they represent.

This is not about policy discussions or building consensus or having solid facts or making good arguments. This is about being right. And when you think you're right, and are unshakable in that faith, there is no space left to engage the other side who probably only want to confuse you with the facts in an attempt to move you off your version of the truth.

Politics at its best is about negotiation and compromise, but you cannot negotiate with those who believe they are completely right and you are completely wrong. Witness the wholesale rejection by Republicans of Obama's legislative agenda, and the willingness of conservative voters to reject Republican politicians who can be shown to have supported any small part it.

The current conservative dynamic is not about politics at all; it is about absolute moral certainty. In its mildest form, it is the kind of certainty that leads to a poorly functioning political system. In its most extreme form, it leads to Republican supporters and campaign workers in places like Kentucky and Alaska resorting to violence to thwart those who threaten their crusade, however these Republicans define it.

It would have been better if Democrats had figured this out a while ago.

In any case, Robespierre would be proud.

Nom nom nom

By Carl

It's fun to juxtapose stories!

Item 1-

"I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach," Gingrey said. "I mean, it's easy if you're Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don't have to try to do what's best for your people and your party. You know you're just on these talk shows and you're living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn't be or wouldn't be good leaders, they're not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell."

Asked to respond to Gingrey, Limbaugh, in an email to Politico, wrote: "I'm sure he is doing his best but it does not appear to be good enough. He may not have noticed that the number of Republican colleagues he has in the House has dwindled. And they will dwindle more if he and his friends don't show more leadership and effectiveness in battling the most left-wing agenda in modern history. And they won't continue to lose because of me, but because of their relationship with the grassroots, which is hurting. Conservatives want leadership from those who claim to represent them. And we'll know it when we see it."

Item 2 -

As they begin meeting in Washington today, many members of the Republican National Committee are focusing their ire against what they considered George W. Bush's anti-conservative policies and trying to dump the man he tapped to run the GOP.

[...]Duncan "has never criticized Bush when the president was wrong," said Shawn Steel, an RNC member from California. "He's the agent of the establishment, and we need a change in personnel."

Can't you just feel the love?

I have a reminder for the Limbaughs and the arch-conservative right wing of the Republican party: Robespierre.

Actually, for Limbaugh, a more appropriate reminder might be Marat.

The trouble with revolutions egged on by people who are fraudulently interested "in the common good" is that eventually the masses find out the true nature of the "leadership" and rebel. Marat, for example, was stabbed to death by an admirer, Charlotte Corday, after his influence in the Revolution and the Reign Of Terror had waned.

Much like Limbaugh's position today, Marat had aligned himself with a lucky star in Robespierre, but once on the tiger, had to hold on literally for dear life and was unable to. That hard stuff you feel under your flabby ass, Rush? That's the ground. The tiger is turning. Too bad you can't run very fast, isn't it?

Similarly, Robespierre was an ideologue, much like Limba -- I mean, Marat. Much like the GOP, Robespierre was accused of tyranny and dictatorship after he passed laws that effectively barred citizens from their rights and established networks of spies that would act without regard for the truth to "protect the people." The Patriot Act, anyone?

Like the GOP, Robespierre tried to instill a quasi-religious governing policy, putting God (actually, Être suprême or Supreme Being) into the French constitution.

Like the GOP, Robespierre tried to stamp out the only real political opposition he faced, the Hébertists.

And like the GOP, Robespierre was ultimately beheaded when the people realized that he was worse than the royalty he had replaced! This after the people had been terrified into order, threatened with wolves at the door, and subsumed into complicity with the Reign of Terror.

Life is fractal, and in this instance, the larger playwright of the French Revolution has writ small, tiny, insignificant, the future of the GOP.

We are watching the GOP now eat itself, much as the Jacobins (ironically, also called Republicans) of Robespierre did, in the individual quest for power in the wake of the loss of their leadership.

Oh... keep in mind that, while the Repub-- er, Jacobins, were cannibalizing themselves, a figure arose out of the ranks: a fairly low ranking officer with little political experience who would lead France to her greatest glory ever.

Life does present us with unusual parallels, does it not?

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)