"Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he."
-- Proverbs 29:18, King James Bible (KJV)

Monday, July 29, 2019

Maureen Dowd at the New York Times Has it Right in "Spare Me the Purity Racket" - A Devastating Message to the Democratic Party Left Wing

Maureen Dowd has it right in her New York Times op-ed titled

Spare Me the Purity Racket.

Dowd's skillfully crafted opinion editorial is a devastating message to the U.S. Democratic Party left-wing erroneously so-called "Progressives", who are helping to assure that U.S. President Donald Trump will be re-elected in 2020.

Dowd writes inter alia:

"The progressives’ cry that they don’t care about the political consequences because they have a higher cause is just a purity racket.

Their mantra is like that of Ferdinand I, the Holy Roman Emperor: “Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.” “Let justice be done, though the world perish.

The rest of us more imperfect beings don’t want the world to perish. And maybe justice can be done, without losing the White House, the House, chocolate, high heels, parties and fun.
" [emphasis added by LawPundit]

and (from an earlier part of that same article):

"Yo, proletariat: If the Democratic Party is going to be against chocolate, high heels, parties and fun, you’ve lost me. And I’ve got some bad news for you about 2020."

As a political centrist not beholden to any political party or any political candidate, we second Dowd's sentiment whole-heartedly.

Donald Trump was elected President because people were (and still are) very tired of left wing extremism and tyrannical political correctness according to one-sided extreme views only.

In the interim, the left political wing has not learned much.
The "silent majority" decides, not you.
America, if anything, is the nation of "the common man", which the left ignores.

"Politics" in our humble opinion cannot be successfully conducted simply as a moral crusade for somebody's pet moral theories, usually honed in the lofty theoretical corridors of common-man-funded institutions of higher learning, and oft advanced by self-proclaimed "better-educated" but in actuality most likely "moral pretenders", who themselves are morally no better than the rest of us, also those of equal (or even better) education. We too are "honed", especially in the art of accomplishing useful things on this 7-billion-plus-inhabitant planet.

Hence, we regard "politics" to be a complex art of skillful opinion blending, a "political science" which reflects the tried-and-true manner of accomplishing useful and necessary things in a world filled with many conflicting opinions.

Which opinion shall prevail?

Not the opinion or moral arrogance of today's left wing. The tyranny of any political wing, also of the left, is "purist" tyranny for the sake of some political "theory", nothing else. We saw what that leads to in National Socialism or Marxist political dogmatism, both of which dogmatically pushed theoretically-based political systems that did not work in practice, to the tragedy of many of the planet's inhabitants.

Trump's "expediency" or what might be viewed as "a politics of convenience", admittedly at times "possibly improper or immoral", looks great by comparison. Not all of it is "right", but it follows a line of thinking of doing what works, and what needs to be done for the nation as a whole, in fact, not in theory.

Some moral purists want to impeach the expedient President because they do not like what he is doing politically (rather than disliking the means per se), rejecting the politics of convenience, and claiming that the U.S. Constitution demands impeachment. Not by our reading ... and our reading also counts.

"Real life" is successfully based on practical problem-solving. You must be able to give and take and "make deals". Otherwise, you won't win elections or solve or alleviate pressing domestic and international problems. People may rankle at "expediency" as a dominating influence, but that is the way things work. Purist morality has little to do with the real world, and often has evil results. America's experiment with Prohibition is one example. It did not work.

In any case, we note as follows that:

We were among the first to predict that Donald Trump would win in 2016, even prior to the primaries, and we can again venture a prediction that Trump will win again in 2020.