Volume 4, Issue 41
We ask ourselves – how did we get to this point in the 240th year of our democracy? Both candidates are aware of their high negatives. Yet both doubled down the attacks on their opponents. It’s as if there is no standard of dignified decorum and no desire to seriously ventilate the issues.
We have become so desperate in our search for meaning that we begin to question ourselves. Does any of the fault or blame lie with us as a society? Did the candidates beguile and confuse us? Have we been dilatory and lackadaisical in our obligations to pay attention to their expositions? And the worst recrimination to consider is, are they, the candidates, reflective of society today?
Shakespeare explored this very political situation in his play, Richard III. He pondered the question – how would a person of questionable character ascend to the throne of a great nation? He used as his example King Richard III of England in the 15th century. Richard was an individual of questionable repute and suspect leadership skills. He had a flawed character of which the public was well aware. In actual history, Richard’s claim to the throne was questionable. His predecessor, Edward IV, died in April of 1483. His son, Edward V, was to become king at the age of 12. He was declared to be of illegitimate birth by a royal council. The hereditary right of the realm was thrown into turmoil. In other words, it was a political mess. Oddly enough, this was 268 years after the Magna Carta when the rights of the barons were forced against King John. Richard was successful in ascending to the throne, partly with the acquiescence of the nobles of the time.
The brilliance of a Shakespearean play is that it is not a documentary acted out with great interest. It is actually a theatrical drama that attracts the audience emotionally. The spectator personally relates to the situation and becomes enmeshed in the emotions of the actors. Stephen Greenblatt writes about this psychological engagement in an essay entitled, “Shakespeare Explains the 2016 Election,” published in the New York Times. He opines that the reason Richard III was one of Shakespeare’s first hits, was because the audience could understand and relate to the histrionics of the play.
What then are the conclusions?
The answer as to why we are facing two choices of flawed character for President of the United States is a combination of factors. We have become too complacent in allowing government to solve our problems rather than facing and acting on problems ourselves. We expect more from government than it can rationally produce. We have become too comfortable with the fallacy that government can print and borrow money forever, that prosperity can be produced out of thin air. We have forgotten any basic concepts of fair play that there must be balance with those who are taxed and those who are regulated for the benefit of social services. We forget that in all disputes of bigotry, racism and unrighteousness, rule of law, due process and respect for the constitution is paramount in resolution. These dividing characteristics of society are easily preyed upon by flawed candidates. And too often, we have elected people who will follow special interests rather than lead on principle.
Shakespeare illustrated, with incredible poetry, that the complex divisions of society enable the outcome, unconsciously working together, when they pursue only their emotional reflexes and personal special interests.
So we find ourselves in this situation. What do we do about it?
Winston Churchill defended principle in the 1930s, lecturing the British public about the ill winds blowing in Europe, that convenience and ceremony were inadequate in confronting those who would divide, manipulate, and mislead. His quote to illustrate this dilemma was, “A kite rises against the wind.”
In these times in which we find ourselves, not only facing a choice between two candidates of flawed character, but seeking civility, purpose, meaning, and leadership for critically needed national and local solutions, voters must determine the principles in which they believe, and upon which they depend, for proper conduct and presidential leadership. How is this accomplished?
Determine the candidate of your shared interests based on principle.
What are these interests? There are many. A small business owner who wishes to live out his or her faith through the business service or product he or she provides will be most concerned about the appointment of the next Supreme Court Justice. The Hobby Lobby case, which ruled that the Green family did not have to provide abortion health care services to their employees, was a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. Justice Scalia, who passed away recently and left a vacancy on the Court, voted with the majority.
In the early years of our country, there was great debate on many issues. It was at many times acrimonious and sometimes uncivil. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton heatedly disagreed on the central role of government. Yet, their debate always centered on principles on which they based their conclusions. The arguments were not based on policy untethered to proven axioms.
Citizens today must decide for themselves what common interests they have with the proposed policies of the candidates. A determination on common interests can only be realized by comparing said interests through the test of principles and beliefs on which they base their children’s future.
When confronted with flawed character and trepidation of applied outcomes, one must raise the kite of opinion into the wind of principle to validate that the kite will rise.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?