When representing a suburban Congressional district bordering Detroit, I was routinely asked (often by the media) whether my political ideology was a fit for my constituents—despite the obvious fact they elected me. The reason the media posed the question was not to get an answer.
It was an accusation: only someone who agreed with these inquisitive individuals, i.e., a Democrat and/or a RINO, would be acceptable to their ideology. To them, the actual views of my constituents were irrelevant, and the constituents themselves were but props for these inquisitorial provocations to which they hoped I would rudely respond.
I approached such provocations as, shall we say, a teachable moment. I had (and still have) a philosophy, not an ideology. A philosophy fits one’s mind to the world; ideology fits the world to one’s mind. The 20th century’s horrors prove what happens when an ideologue tries to reshape reality to conform to their insanity. Some may disagree, but they may take it up with communism and fascism’s surviving victims.
Having a philosophy instructed by faith and millennia of human history, I had no illusions that an ideologue would suddenly agree with me. As an “armed doctrine,” ideology has the power to defend itself by employing such human weaknesses as hubris and cognitive dissonance, among others.
Consequently, in offering my response, it was imperative to be courteous and not be snide or patronizing. Sure, part of trying to do so was to exhibit the demeanor expected of an elected official. But more importantly, it allowed for the recipient of my answer to perhaps one day critically examine it in light of their own experiences and prudential judgments, and maybe in their own good time agree. (Yes, if they agreed with me before the next election, even better. Hey, I wasn’t a recovering politician back then.) It was not always easy, and often I did not quite make the mark, and the results of these encounters are far from conclusive proof of the approach’s success.
Okay, you ask, then why the stumble down memory lane? The Southern California wildfires—specifically, some of the regrettable Republican-populist and/or MAGA responses.
In politics, the only thing more counterproductive than standing in front of someone telling them they are wrong is standing in front of someone telling them you were right—especially when they have lost everything, including their homes, loved ones, and lives.
As the Southern California wildfires wreak devastation of biblical proportions, the right has shown some regrettable instances of partisanship, blaming the victims for voting for Democrats and for believing in and supporting the climate change agenda. This has infuriated the wildfires’ victims—including the Republican-populist and MAGA supporters who live there and, like my friend and stalwart Trump supporter, Lowell Cauffiel, lost everything. If they are infuriated by such a calloused response, it certainly will not facilitate Democrats and independents reconsidering their views and voting patterns. This is especially true for the leftist ideologues among them, who would be the most hard-pressed to self-examine their “enlightened, morally superior views.”
If one is to defeat the defenses of the armed doctrine of ideology—the denial and/or subordination of human nature and experience to advance and impose an ill-founded, abstract idea—exemplifying the best of human nature is the best means to succeed. It starts with taking politics out of and putting compassion into the equation: No one deserves the devastation of the Southern California wildfires.
If your neighbor’s house is being consumed in a fire, you help them put it out; once it is extinguished, you console them on the loss. At no time would you confront your neighbor and blame them for the fire and claim they deserved it. This benefits your neighbor, yourself, and the entire neighborhood. After the appropriate authorities conclude their investigation of the fire, in a far more composed state, your neighbor will be more amenable to hearing how the fire started and how to prevent such fires in the future. It is the compassion for your neighbor and the dispassionate investigation that, in time, allow them to consider the experience and revise their future actions to preclude it from reoccurring.
While some on the right may feel better by asserting Southern Californians “deserve” this or rhetorically asking, “What did they expect?,” such callousness lends credence to the corporate media’s “Republicans pounce” trope. This makes it far more difficult for the victims and all Americans to consider any critiques and/or constructive suggestions, regardless of what subsequent investigations reveal as to the cause(s) of and responses to this wildfire and the methods and means to prevent and, when necessary, combat and mitigate the damage of future wildfires.
Why? Because if the entire right is viewed as responsible for politicizing these investigations, they will be viewed through a partisan lens by the victims, notably the very Democrats and independents the right hopes will reassess their political assumptions and partisan allegiances in the wake of the catastrophe.
Sure, the left is actively politicizing the wildfires to skirt accountability and raise money by proffering their stock deflections, including but not limited to climate change, Donald Trump, the GOP, corporate greed, and Big Oil—in short, everyone but themselves. Did anyone expect otherwise? But the temptation to respond in kind must be avoided.
Americans are very practical people. It is why ideology has such a hard time making inroads among the masses of the people. Not all Democrats are ideologues (just as some Republicans are). They—and most Americans—recognize this catastrophe requires compassion and competence. Thus, while momentarily galling, leave the soapbox to California’s elected officials and their cronies, who will politicize the tragedy to save their own hides and raise some bucks off the backs of victims. The majority of people, including many of those who have been harmed by these officials’ incompetence and ideology, will ultimately see through it and be appalled.
Some, of course, never will, especially those leftist ideologues rendered purblind by their “armed doctrine.” But even fewer Californians and, indeed, all Americans will contemplate the findings of a thorough, objective investigation if the right clouds the issue with intemperate remarks, and, with the gleeful ministrations of the regime media, are tagged as the despicable ideologues who “pounced” and politicized the tragedy for partisan gain.
After all, how can Republican populists and/or MAGA expect anyone to reject leftist ideology when the right acts like leftist ideologues—specifically, by advancing their political agenda in the face of human suffering? By engaging in such partisanship amidst a catastrophe, some on the right have forgotten the evergreen truism from President Harry Truman: “When you argue with a skunk, only two things happen: you smell like a skunk and the skunk is happy.”
It is time the entire right stopped making the skunk happy. It is always too early to be callous, cruel, and incompetent. It is never too late to be kind, compassionate, and competent—which, in due course, brings accountability.
***
An American Greatness contributor, the Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) served Michigan’s 11th Congressional District from 2003-2012 and served as Chair of the Republican House Policy Committee. Not a lobbyist, he is a frequent public speaker and moderator for public policy seminars and a Monday co-host of the “John Batchelor Radio Show,” among sundry media appearances.
At what point is it appropriate to point out that their ideology, and their choices, led directly to the hellish outcomes they are currently experiencing? When is it okay to say that, while I am happy to see other states voluntarily sent help to deal with the immediate threat of the fires and private aid is doing what it can to alleviate the very real suffering these people are enduring, any federal aid needs to come with strings that mandate changes in public policy to reduce this kind of outcome in the future?
Honestly, my compassion is largely confined to those who find themselves in difficult situations through little to no fault of their own and that doesn’t necessarily apply here. Part of what makes the SoCal fires so horrific is that it was entirely predictable, even inevitable. Wildfires, whether the result of lightening, human error or human malice, are a fact of life in California; this is the reality. Public policies that amplify or exacerbate this facet of life in that environment are nothing short of playing Russian roulette with the lives of millions. And at some point, the people impacted by these fires need to accept that their voting habits over the last six or seven decades have had a hand in creating the conditions that they are dealing with.
One of the things that make it so difficult to hold back the snark, for me, is the reality that only 47% of southern Californians blame their elected officials for this disaster. With those kind of numbers, I don’t think there is enough properly directed anger there to, not only bring about necessary change, but to also hold those elected officials responsible. And if that is how things will remain, not point out that they brought this upon themselves AND are willing to continue to vote for more of the same.
To me, taking any other approach is tantamount to enabling bad behavior. But it isn’t as if my feelings are directed at Californians that mostly vote Democrat. I feel the same way about those in the east and northeast that get flooded out EVERY year by floods brought on by the spring snow melt. It’s like telling me the only way I can show compassion to an alcoholic is by buying them another 5th of scotch.
To top everything off, we also KNOW what will happen to the burned out sites. Developers are going to swoop in, buy the lots at (forgive me) firesale prices, consolidate them, and build large apartment complexes and condominiums---------and then raise rents to exorbitant amounts.
Already rents are skyrocketing for available properties, and who is preying on fellow Californians? FELLOW CALIFORNIANS!
And I’m supposed to say, “There, there. Let me bail you out of your mess at a high cost to me in taxes and raised homeowner insurance rates in unaffected states so that the insurance companies can come out of this, not only whole, but also making even larger profits.” ???
I’ll tell you what. Get back to me when the citizens of North Carolina are made whole again. Let me know when they are out of their tents in wintertime and back into a real structure. Let me know when their electricity is fully restored and their water is turned back on. Let me know when the promised FEMA trailers are in place. Let me know when the FEMA representatives are servicing families that had a Trump sign in the yard.
Get that done first and then give me a call.
Exactly. Trying to not turn my post this morning into a very long rant, I skipped a lot of stuff I would have liked to have added. An other example, albeit a much less dire one, are the states that want a federal income tax deduction for their outrageous property taxes …if you don’t like the taxation rate in your state, stop voting in people who support it; why should I be forced to subsidize your poor choices?
Exhibit A
Mr. McCotter makes a very reasonable point of which I am of two minds. First, he is wise in his counsel to not politicize the tragedy of Southern California’s wildfires out of both compassion and pragmatism; nobody ever wants to hear they are the reason for their troubles–even if they are. It’s simply piling on.
And angering those confused souls who may be receptive to appeal after some reflection and regret, would be unlikely to renounce their religious-like fervor in favor of more sane, practical solutions and policies. The old saw that one catches more flies with honey than vinegar is still as timeless as it true.
That said, its reasonable to ask if Mr. McCotter is overestimating the receptiveness of the victims of decades of Democrat policies. Yes, there are ongoing recall initiatives for both Governor Newscum and Karen Fidel Bass. And its possible that one or both of them could succumb to these recall efforts. But are these recall drives merely emotionally charged reactions, or are they indicative of more substantive dissatisfaction among deep blue California voters.
Mr. McCotter charitably assumes the later. Cynicism, backed by decades of Democrat voter lunacy, would argue the former.