The GOP's Fateful Journey from Moderation to Machiavellianism
Richard Mourdock's victory over Dick Lugar in this month's Republican primary is just the latest piece of evidence that Americans speak with a forked tongue when they list the qualities they want in a leader. On the one hand, they decry partisanship and polarization. On the other, they continue to elect ever more partisan and polarizing figures.
So what gives here?
Maybe, just maybe, Mourdock is actually right. Maybe voters actually agree with his path to political harmony: disdain compromise and go straight for the jugular. Civil discourse? It's a waste of time. The quickest, most effective way of getting what you want is running roughshod over your opponents. Statesmanship be damned.
In a dictatorship, you don't have statesmen. You have yes men and bullies. Think of a government run by the Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Mourdock and Joe Arpaio. Statesmen need not apply. The prerequisites for involvement in this hypothetical regime might include banning the practice of all religions except for evangelical Christianity, smashing Buddhist statues, calling women who disagree with you "whores" and consigning political opponents to concentration camps in the Arizona desert.
It's no surprise that all the aforementioned figures are Republicans. Even journalists who have spent their careers arguing for balanced reporting are starting to admit that there's more blame to be had on the right than the left. Indeed, a pair of respected political commentators who can hardly be described as liberal recently placed the lion's share of the blame for America's political dysfunction at the feet of the Republican Party. Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, like most in the mainstream media, had previously blamed both sides for the gridlock and acrimony that plague Washington. But a few weeks ago, they gave up the ghost of balanced journalism in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Read the full commentary on The Provocation
