Scene: The patient arrives in the ER and her name is America. Trauma surgeons observe her on the gurney, lying and dying from multiple self-inflicted injuries— from abortion, to insurrection, to gun control—all stemming from a massive infection on the Republican side of the brain.
Well, with the arrival of the leaked Alito draft on the unconstitutionality of Roe v. Wade, there is no longer any doubt in my mind that a politically motivated court of Supremes with both distinct originalist proclivities and biases towards the reunification of church and state (rather than its separation), has finally wrangled enlightenment from the bosom of our nation. In concert with a mentally deranged Congressional element in the Republican Party, in combination with white Christian zealots, nihilists, regressive-thinking ultraconservatives, and an array of other right-wing provocateurs possessing an even still greater panoply of anti-democratic motives, the Court and others are actively engaged in attempting to hijack our government and overthrow the will of a civil society.
With the politicization of the Supreme Court and its inability to function without bias or preconception; and with added deft I might add through their perverse lens of arcane legalese and an anachronistic model of our humane evolution, we, as a country, are one step closer to becoming a captive nation with autocrats and jurists bent on returning us to the dark ages. Will we let them?
I remember hearing the hysteria following the January 6th insurrection about the inevitability of a second civil war. Really? “That’s nuts,” I thought! I pooh-poohed the idea as an absurd overreaction. “Don’t be ridiculous,” I murmured to myself. “It’s 2022, not 1861.”
But, now I’m not so sure. With the recent additional revelations about a wife-Supreme-- who will remain nameless (Ginny Thomas)-- involved in the not-so-subtle coup of the government while married to her husband-Supreme (whose name we know, Clarence) who failed to recuse himself despite taking a position from the bench on a related matter, raised yet another alarm bell. Are they really all in cahoots? I had long presumed that such shenanigans were what paranoid fantasies were made of. Yet here we are.
And then we have the rest of the motley crew. When questioned about precedence and their positions on Roe v. Wade during their Senate hearings, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch demurred. There was little forthrightness, sincerity, or honesty in their responses on the matter. Supposedly among the most brilliant legal minds in the country, yet they just couldn’t come clean.
At best they were disingenuous. At worst, I would say this: if one has a preconceived notion and doesn’t admit to it-- especially under persistent questioning-- is the untruth that results a lie of omission or one of commission? What is happening to us; to our integrity as a people? What has happened to our treasured Supreme Court that was once emblematic of the loftiest moral models our democracy had to offer?
Taken together, these immoral prevarications from the Justices, in combination with persistent deceit, lying, and manipulations by the Republicans who support the “stop the steal” movement and promote the “big lie” lunacy, the embracing of Q-Anon and other conspiracy theories by our Congressmen and Congresswomen—beliefs so bizarre that it makes your skin crawl-- and the brazen disregard for everyday basic democratic principles (so basic, like dare I say it?, the right to vote!) by many Republican Governors and Legislatures throughout the country, to say nothing about the xenophobes, misogynists, thugs, sycophants, and insurrectionists-- if I do not see an outright armed civil war (as absurd as that sounds)-- I cannot see any way to avoid a revolt of the masses in some form, the likes of which we have not seen in this country since the protests against the Vietnam War and the civil rights confrontations that dealt the final blow to segregation. I cannot understand how we can survive any other way. The axis must shift.
Here’s my worry. Should our impetus to stand up united on principle and speak out loudly to save our democratic way of life not bring us en masse into the streets and polling places, and engaged in other forms of activism in order to elevate our voices in revolt against this hijacking, then our democratic society in these un-psychologically united states will remain forever altered in favor of increasingly autocratic minority rule.
How did we get here? Well, the idea that we have more in common with each other than separates us is a beautiful sentiment, but does it hold? The tale is best told in psychological terms. Take a look at Ukraine today as an example. Ukraine is a large and diverse nation under siege, but the world can’t stop admiring them for their courage and psychological unity fostered by a compassionate and determined leader.
“Psychologically united” requires that we share a common belief, an agreed upon set of assumptions, and a commitment to a common ideal. When millions of our fellow citizens believe the lie perpetrated and perpetuated by Donald Trump that the last presidential election was stolen, when insurrectionists are falsely described as just a bunch of unruly “tourists”, when a society that embraced “birtherism” and supports an aggrieved and racist Tea Party, when a U.S. president blackmails his counterpart in Ukraine with a “perfect call”, and when two impeachments and considerations of the invocation of the 25th amendment define a presidency (a President who we now learn, thanks to former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, wanted to lob missiles into Mexico) reflect our divide, and when 2/3rds of the country want to retain Roe v. Wade, and roughly the same amount want more effective gun control, but the Supreme Court can’t control its originalist impulses that would bring us backwards 250 years, then I ask where is the validity to that “more in common than separates us” refrain? Where is our psychological unity?
The recent mass shootings in Buffalo NY and Uvalde, TX, once again underscore the desperation we face. The people of this country are actually united in their desire for legislation to reduce gun violence but the GOP has made a different choice for itself. Rather than assume a leadership role and create safer streets and promote the common good, and as the preamble to the Constitution states, “insure domestic tranquility…and promote the general welfare,” they have abdicated their responsibilities in favor of a different welfare: their own. In choosing to preserve their own jobs by cravenly catering to the donors, lobbyists, and special interests who support them, they promote fear among their constituents by telling them the lie that the government wants to take their guns away. Rather than lead and educate the constituents in their districts, they choose dominance over integrity and power over principle. This is the foundation upon which an autocratic society is built.
Authoritarians maintain their hold on power by manipulating the masses through exaggeration, distortion, and fear. Instead of providing leadership and reassurance they play to the worst fears, impulses and prejudices of the common man, thereby extracting support from their constituents and reinforcing their own vaulted positions in the process.
Gun violence in this country is an unequivocal pathology. Understand this: there is nothing normal about it. Yet it can of course be effectively addressed and largely resolved as other governments have done. It does not have to be an intractable problem. What is intractable, however, is that Republicans—legislators and right of center voters-- through their persistent voice and vote, elevate the value of guns while diminishing the value of human life. I ask you, is this a rational position for any person to take-- especially a party that claims to be pro-life? If the Republican Congress, by their actions or their failure to act to stem gun violence results in mass murder, if this does not rise to the level of a legal crime, it certainly must be a moral one.
When murder, mayhem, horror and misery become normalized, an aberrant, perverse, mentality has been struck. Like individuals who get sick and require intervention, therapy, or hospitalization, societies too can suffer a similar degradation. When politicians-- and in this case it is clearly the Republicans who have refused to budge-- take us down the road towards self-destruction, society as a whole must intervene. (Irrational power and irrational thinking are not responsive to rational arguments.) If we fail in this regard, we are all complicit. When people ask you “what’s wrong with America?” you can tell them in no uncertain terms that the nation is sick; it is ailing, that there has been a lapse in its ability to function rationally and that the jury is still out regarding its prospects for recovery.
Psychologists have debated the nature of the authoritarian personality for years, but most agree it is characterized by a rigidity of thought, adherence to a hierarchically ordered state-- and a state of mind devoted to that obedience-- with a strongly defined and rigid sense of right and wrong, a cognitive style defined by categorical and black and white thinking, and a simplicity of explanation and causality that can easily be invoked by a powerful single person or group.
It doesn’t readily abide things that are free, like speech and choice. It is typically simplistic in reasoning-- and the false “clarity” it pretends to offer provides comfort and reassurance to those already uneasy with the complexity of life and the world (dis-) order. Republicans love it. It simplifies things. But it belies everything that psychological unity requires. The “authoritarian” notion has nothing to do with education or intelligence. It is about personality type and cognitive style; about control and dominance and the behaviors and beliefs that flow from it all.
On the other hand, Democrats, liberals, progressives, and democracy-enamored types in general, suffer from their own self-absorbed problematic nature. Their world is complex, nuanced, and conflicted, and demands discussion, debate, consensus, inclusion, fairness and equality. It acknowledges the complexity and the fluidity of things, but as a result finds decision-making complicated. Thus, by its nature, coming to terms with what’s “right” is fraught and elusive. Power and absolutes, a balm to the authoritarians is at times anathema to the Democrats. Democrats wring their hands when they don’t have power but often refuse to use it when they get it. But without the assertion of power, change remains illusory and advocating for the common good becomes futile.
Holding power is a requirement to achieve any kind of change. It’s a necessity for growth. But uneasy with power, liberals often eschew it, fearing they may alienate some or be misunderstood by others. But politics is all about power. If embracing power—especially when you have been awarded it-- is antithetical to your psychological identity and your politics, it is time to choose another major. Principles and policy aside, neither can be had without power. Squooshy is not a good look.
The Republican obsession with power under Mitch McConnell, the self-described Grim Reaper, led a party of obstructionists during the Obama years, defined by blocking every Democratic initiative—to the detriment of the country by the way—and culminating in stealing a Supreme Court pick (Merrick Garland was denied a senate hearing of course) because McConnell had the power. Liberals hate it when power is used against them, but by their own nature become inept in using it when they get it. They want it but can’t wield it. They want to be liked, not criticized; idealistic but not confrontational.
In the past we used to think of “authority” as what you get when you marry “power” with the “right” to have it—that is, when the right to legislate and govern is bestowed upon you by the people. In simple terms that’s what democracy is all about. Only then does authority, when asserted and carried out fairly, generate a psychological buy-in. But when votes are suppressed, when certain powerful people deny the majority of the population their rights, when power by itself masquerades as “authority”, when power is abused, that’s when societies come apart. Individuals retreat to comfort zones for survival, huddle with others like-minded, and ultimately de-stabilize the union.
Republicans these days, street fighters by nature—they’ll bring a gun to a knife fight-- pursue power, take power, and employ power to meet their own ends. Instead of believing in “authority” as a condition where rights are assigned (by the people, all the people, by the vote), operate with the underlying belief that they have a monopoly on what’s right—as if it is god-given, divine in fact (thus they know better), and therefore might makes right.
Such thinking my friends is the source of zealotry, which leads to impassioned ravings, wild imaginings, and extremism beyond the pale. But for this brand of Republicanism, they’ll take it. Case closed! In lieu of any push-back from within their party or without, they’ll take the win, because power becomes wealth and that of course is the unspoken agenda.
Abuse of power creates psychological disunity and destroys the fabric of a society. Today’s Democrats know this. Power and wealth as a political agenda, only serve to weaken a nation. Inequality equates to poverty, poor education, ill-health, conflict, social discord, marginalization, emotional stress and suffering, violence, and the inability to solve problems. Although Democrats seek an enlightened, progressive, evolving society, they are failing as stewards of it. Such goals are noble but a presumed nobility and self-righteousness alienate and offend others and smack of the “high and mighty”. Having forgotten how to talk to people, while incorrectly associating power with force, aggression, and under-handedness, which they reject, Democrats replace assertiveness with preachiness, while oblivious to the fact that admonishment fails as a political philosophy.
Liberals cite the failings of the Electoral College and the 2-Senators per state rule despite the imbalances represented by the population count in individual states, and thus decry the Republicans’ advantage due to minority rule. But if you fail to communicate effectively with the majority who is to blame?
So, in getting back to the original question, “will we let them?” (i.e., the autocrats and jurists returning us to the dark ages), I believe the jury is still out even though the future of the country hangs in the balance. Some questions are easier to answer than others. For example, here’s a warning I like to characterize as “beware the re-definers.” That’s what a thief does. He says, “your stuff is my stuff so I’m taking it.” He redefines the concept of ownership. Is that right? Fair? Of course not. It’s an easy question to answer. On the other hand, when does life begin? What is a human being? When does someone, some cells, a fetus become a person? Whose life do you value more, a grown person’s or an unborn person’s? Not so easy, huh? For some it’s simple, for others not so much. Is it worth a debate or is a simple declaration enough? Who is the “definer”? If you belief the answer is the absolute power of the autocrat, then in this country you are going to have a problem.
Recently Patti Davis, the daughter of President Ronald Reagan wrote an op-ed for the New York Times, “How My Father, Ronald Reagan, Grappled with Abortion.” It is insightful, sincere, revealing, and worth a read for those both on the right and on the left. (here). For another reference, to both cloud and clarify the abortion debate simultaneously, and to understand the over-simplification created by the re-definers on the right, Ezra Klein’s “The Ethics of Abortion” interview with Kate Greasley is well worth your time. (here) (I must thank my friend and colleague, Dr. Paul Schnur, for his recommendation of the podcast and his insights and thoughtful discussion on the matter.)
If “rising up” non-violently but passionately, committedly, and with ownership, is no longer in our hearts, in our convictions, and in our DNA; if rising up is no longer within us, then our country, as we know it now, as we knew it then, as we believed the trajectory in which we were moving, is no more and is no longer, but instead is nothing less than a self-deception and a head-fake, then now is the time to walk away. If we let a minority of conspiracy-believing power-driven control freaks, anachronistic thinkers, otherwise sensible men and women with no spines, self-respect or integrity, take control of the reins of government of our democratic society, of our minds, emotions, law-making bodies and jurisprudence, nothing about what you think or do to advance an enlightened thought or action will matter.
(Democrats, pay attention: you need to go to the middle of the country, down south, out west, and talk in person with voters, about policy, real facts (not as Bob Dylan would say dee-storted facts) and reality. There are minds there— enough probably— that can be changed.)
I awoke this morning wondering about our mettle. About the endurance we always believed would be there. Who knew how fragile and potentially temporary we were! So now it feels like we’ve morphed into a behemoth rolling downhill having already lost a wheel. A single issue or two having dominated our consciousness and politics for a century or more.
Has our psycho-social unity been a myth all along? I wonder if we, as a democratic society—the lot of us, distinguished by different shades of color, belief systems, and points of origin; and the most diverse on the planet— can singularly or collectively, wake up, stand up, arise, and rise up in time. Can we heal her?
Scene: America, the patient, now arrives in the ICU. The Chief of Surgery remarks to his colleagues: There are those who think “thoughts and prayers” might help. I told them it is now in the hands of fate. The only hope is a paradigm shift— a kind of zeitgeist moment where grievance and discord turns to good sense, understanding, and recovery.
MEMORIAL DAY!