Brevity can be a desirable thing in American politics. A political speech that is brief and to the point would be admirable, for example. And as everything in a political campaign in our Great Republic seems endless, repetitive and squalid, it's understandable that any curtailment of the process seems prima facie desirable.
But alas, the Resolution adopted by the Republican Party at its convention this year, though blessedly brief, isn't remarkable for its brevity. It would be possible, though unusual, for principles of a party or candidate to be stated succinctly. It's remarkable because it states no principles of any kind. Indeed, it doesn't even try to do so. In fact, its language seems to express a kind of delight or relief that no principles need be identified, and concludes with a stern statement to the effect that no effort to formulate or promulgate any principles will be tolerated. So perhaps there were some Republicans who felt it was important that the party at least seem to endorse principles and were being told that wouldn't happen.
Only a portion of the resolvedly unprincipled Resolution is shown above. Most of the rest of it consists of claims that the fact that the Resolution contains no principles should not be taken to reflect adversely on the Republican Party and that it is wrong for anyone to to suggest that it does. But the Resolution also states, more than once, that the Republican Party is united in support of the president.
This is most appropriate. As close members of his family and others have noted, the president has no principles. It's entirely fitting that a political party which eschews principles, or at least the expression of them, would support a person who is manifestly unprincipled.
It's amazing, however, that a political party would flaunt its insistence that no principles may be espoused by it. The rule is that in politics as in advertising appearance is significant, not substance. So the expectation would be that a party, a politician and a candidate will at least pretend to be principled, pretend to stand for something, with varying degrees of sincerity or success. But the Republican Party is so blithe in its dismissal of any effort to adopt a set of principles for this election that it's clear it has decided its failure to do so isn't a matter of concern. Oddly, it doesn't even incorporate the prior election's platform, but merely mentions that there's no need to prepare another.
Does this mean that it has chosen to be honest about the fact that statements of political principles are meaningless, and generally disregarded, and so their preparation a wasted effort? There are portions of the Resolution which suggests that is the case. That would certainly be extraordinary, particularly of a party which is moralistic and self-righteous to an extreme. It has a long history of generating platitudes. You'd think it would be an easy thing to resurrect those used in the past, or prepare new ones adequate to the task. Probably, this is merely an effort to contend that it doesn't really matter whether it has a platform or not, in the end.
And that strikes me as an expression of profound resignation, if not cynicism; an acceptance of the relegation of a party to the whims of a single, self-obsessed person. It's as if Republicans were saying "Screw it. Principles? A platform? Come on!"
But it's hard to think that there is such a level of self-evaluation at work. It's more likely, I believe, that the majority of the voting members of the party understand that the electors, or at least those who will vote Republican, don't care what principles are adopted or appear to be adopted. Their cultish devotion to the president is such that they need have no reason to support him or those that facilitate his caperings.
As a result, there's a concern that restating or reformulating the traditional principles of the party would merely make it, and them, look silly. Whatever devotion there was to those principles has disappeared. The Republican Party, as it now exists, supports the president because it has nothing else to support. His largely incoherent ramblings and bizarre conduct have little to do with the nation or the best interests of its citizens. The party knows this. The members of the party are so craven that they don't wish to risk his displeasure by seeming to believe that he should concern himself with such things, instead of himself. That's something he will not do, and he would resent anyone who tells him he should.
But it may be the case that most of the party has come to accept that principles are inconvenient in any event. The less thought about them the better in this age of diminished people, things and ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment