The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (God rest her soul) has led to a predictably intense conversation about the who, what, why, where, when, how, and if of her replacement by President Trump. And that's just on the right. It's been ugly on Facebook, including among my own friends, people I like and respect, people who went to the same college with me, people who espouse the same religion.
A lot of the ugliness, I think, goes back to the question of the Flight 93 paradigm. The (in)famous 2016 essay (read it here, if you wish to be annoyed, edified, scandalized, or whatever: https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/the-flight-93-election/) posited that America was at a crossroads, about to be destroyed, and that any means should be taken to save it, up to and including supporting politicians lacking in moral fibre.
This position was, and remains, the position of many on the right--and, I might add, the left. It has also been decried by many of those on the right for putting pragmatism over a real interest in the common good. If the right becomes focused merely on power, how are we not the bad guys? Are we any different from Boromir, wanting to use the ring for good? How are we not Machiavellians, acting as if the good end (saving the country) justifies the bad means (electing the morally bankrupt)?
No comments:
Post a Comment