By Ben Shapiro
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
For the last two years, a hearty debate has taken center
stage among conservatives: Does character matter? That debate was prompted, of
course, by the rise of Donald Trump; the debate has not abated. This week, the
debate began anew thanks to President Trump’s decision to go mano-a-mano with a Gold Star widow who
questioned his sincerity in a condolence call. Trump responded to her
complaints by denying her account of the event.
Does this sort of thing matter? In one sense, it
certainly doesn’t: Trump may not be politically damaged by this sort of
behavior. After all, political damage results from hopes disappointed, and few
Americans hoped that Trump was above this sort of thing — at least, not after
he attacked John McCain’s war heroism in 2015 (“I like people that weren’t
captured”) and after he attacked a Gold Star family that was politicking at the
Democratic National Convention in 2016 (“If you look at his wife, she was
standing there, she had nothing to say . . . Maybe she wasn’t allowed to have
anything to say, you tell me”). So we shouldn’t be surprised at Trump’s latest
salvo against a Gold Star wife who seems to have interpreted his words in the
worst possible light.
But in another sense, Trump’s politicization of sacred
space in our culture is a serious problem. It’s serious because no culture can
exist without certain cultural capital — trust — and that trust exists only
when there are certain spaces in which we can assume agreement without having
to ask. Thomas Sowell writes that cohesive groups rich in cultural capital have
certain advantages in business and life: “Attitudes exist in societies that can
be beneficial or harmful.” Like-minded groups can easily minimize transaction
costs, thereby lowering cost in economic terms; in social terms, these groups
are less likely to facilitate conflict between individuals. When we share
cultural totems and taboos, we are all better off.
One of those obvious cultural taboos was politicization
of Gold Star families. We can all acknowledge that Gold Star families undergo
the ultimate sacrifice when they lose a loved one in the line of duty. As
stated by White House chief of staff General John Kelly, himself a Gold Star
father whose son died in Afghanistan: “They are the very best this country
produces, and they volunteer to protect our country when there’s nothing in our
country anymore that seems to suggest that selfless service to the nation is
not only appropriate, but required.” Our country may be torn apart by a range
of issues, but on this we all agree. That’s why President George W. Bush didn’t
respond with disrespect to the garbled rage of Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan;
instead of opposing her, he stated:
Part of my duty as the president is
to meet those who have lost a loved one. I sympathize with Mrs. Sheehan. She
feels strongly about her position. She has every right in the world to say what
she believes. This is America.
To do what Bush did takes character. To take the heat
from Cindy Sheehan — a woman who said openly that Bush went to war for oil, and
that her son had died to make Bush’s “friends rich” — takes enormous will.
Cindy Sheehan did political damage to President Bush. But Bush understood that
it was more important that the country maintain the sanctity of Gold Star
families than that he defend himself from Sheehan.
For Trump, such concerns take a back seat to his
instinctive need to punch back. And many conservatives are fine with that:
Their chief criticism of Bush, at least partially warranted, is that Bush was
too reticent to respond to attacks. But just because responding to political
attacks generally is useful doesn’t mean responding to all such attacks is useful.
The same is true with regard to our partisan bickering
over sexual harassment and assault. The hallmark of any civilized society is
its protection of innocents, particularly women and children. Yet depending on
the political orientation of the attacker, the various political sides have
chosen to ignore or defend such activity. If the name of the villain is Bill
Clinton or Teddy Kennedy or Bob Menendez, the Left suggests that ignorance is
bliss; if the name of the villain is Donald Trump, the right decides to look
the other way. The only thing that’s lost: the social fabric, which allowed us
to believe that our neighbors felt the same way we did about acts of sexual
exploitation.
As we grow more partisan, and as that partisanship grows
more heated, our cultural capital will continue to decline. The only thing that
will replace it is dislike of the other side — what will unify us with our
neighbors isn’t principle, but reactionary opposition. That’s a recipe for
disaster, since opposition alone doesn’t provide a moral guidepost. No society
can be built on anger.
But the greatest society in history can be torn down by
it.
No comments:
Post a Comment