Suppose you’re a die-hard Democrat. What do you do about such issues as:
Transgenderism in women’s sports. Do you side with persons having male chromosomes but identify as women when they want to compete in sports against women, simply because such persons are overwhelmingly Democrats? Or do you side with genetic women – who are also predominately Democrats – who are concerned that subjecting genetic women to competition from persons who’ve spent most of their lives developing height, girth and muscle mass as a man with male chromosomes and testosterone levels will destroy women’s sports?
Environmentalism and immigration versus unions. Do you side with trade unions – which are overwhelmingly Democrats – who understandably want good jobs for workers? Or do you side with environmentalists – who are also overwhelmingly Democrats – who want to eliminate the oil and gas industry and the millions of jobs that accompany it, and illegal immigration advocates – who are overwhelmingly Democrats – who want to flood America with low-paid immigrants that may eventually vote Democrat but will drive down America’s worker wages even further?
Schools for minorities. Do you side with Chicago public school teachers – overwhelmingly Democrats – who want to continue receiving their salary while schools are closed indefinitely on the pretense of COVID fears? Or do you side with black parents – overwhelmingly Democrats – who want to see their kids back in school and point to safe school re-openings across the country?
There’s the same issue on school choice. Do you side with teachers and their unions – overwhelmingly Democrats – who want to restrict school choice by black parents? Or do you side with those black parents – overwhelmingly Democrats – who want to send their kids to the best schools available?
Urban violence versus urban order. Do you side with radical groups like Antifa and the more extreme elements of Black Lives Matter – overwhelmingly Democrats – who candidly espouse attention-seeking violence for their causes? Or do you side with the urban residents and businesses – also overwhelmingly Democrat – who suffer the results of that violence?
The same issue presents with regard to urban vagrancy, er, homelessness, er, persons experiencing homelessness. Do you side with feral humans who seek attention by camping on the downtown sidewalks and pooping in the gutters and their enabling advocates who are overwhelmingly Democrats? Or do you side with the urban residents and businesses – overwhelmingly Democrats – who are trying to live and work a few feet away from those make-shift toilets?
Democrats who’ve read this far are entitled to a little “whataboutism.” What about Republicans, they ask. Fair enough.
If you’re a die-hard Republican, what do you do about, say, abortion? Are you a spiritual or moralistic Republican who says that says life is sacred? Or are you more of a libertarian Republican who says the government should not decide such things?
Speaking of Republicans and life and death, what about the death penalty? Are you a Republican who says the government lacks the moral authority to take a life because that’s a question for God alone, or are you a Republican who says God has already decreed, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”?
What about capitalism for Republicans? Do you side with natural monopolies like Google, Facebook and Amazon that result from amazing but disruptive technological revolution in a capitalism economy, and the power inherent in such monopolies? Or do you side with consumers who feel their privacy is invaded and their thoughts are controlled by such monopolistic powers?
In politics, these are called “wedge issues.” They tend to drive a wedge between individuals who otherwise agree with one another. Democrats are especially vulnerable to wedge issues because they tend to stand not for principles but for opposition to Republicans.
Democrats are so vulnerable to wedge issues that they’ve adopted a strategy to limit their effect. They call their strategy “intersectionality.” It’s a vague term that means, “Each Democrat may have a different focus, but we agree on everything.”
Intersectionality doesn’t work, of course, because just saying “we agree on everything” doesn’t actually produce agreement. But it’s a way of deflecting the discussion to the one thing they do always agree on: That they hate Republicans.
Here’s my point. Don’t let your tribe do your thinking for you. Think for yourself. You and your country will be better off.
Otherwise, you’ll be confronted with issues like these where you don’t know what to think because your tribe is divided on the subject. Like sheep without a shepherd, you’ll be lost. In fact, you already are. You just don’t know it yet.
To paraphrase the line from “Jerry Maguire,” you lost half your audience at “tribe.”
Well done. “Intersectionality” is the tragic and destructive error embraced by what I call the “Vichy” Catholic Church — the one governed by Rome and a plurality of U.S. bishops — which countenances abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, less-than-sacramental marriage, open borders and so on, while claiming that all Catholics agree on the dignity of life. For this (mostly Democrat) “Church of Nice,” abortion is a complex issue while the death penalty is “simply” wrong. As you say, this doesn’t work. Also as you say, the sheep are lost because this Church embraces a twisted understanding of its Shepherd — who in fact carries a rod as well as a staff, who unequivocally condemns those who dare to harm “one of these little ones.”
Well said! Red Francis is destroying the Church.
For those that espouse government interference in all things, perhaps the way to handle that would be to add to the check boxes currently used for funding the elections. Check here and one or more dollars will be taken from your refund to pay for this or that.
Check here if you agree to having your refund reduced by $5 to set up a fund for paying for abortions. By law, no federal monies can be used to fund abortions unless it comes from this earmarked fund.
Check here if you agree to having your refund reduced by $5 to set up a fund for paying for services for the homeless. By law, no federal monies can be used to fund services for the homeless unless it comes from this fund.
Check here if you agree to having your refund reduced by $5 to set up a fund for the construction of a border wall. By law, no federal monies can be used to fund the wall unless it comes from this fund.
I could go on.
I can see it now —
Check here and we’ll defund federal grants to police departments (and ICE, for sure) and dedicate your $5 to funding more social workers and domestic counselors.
Check here and your $5 will fund healthcare (Including abortions, of course) for the thousands of illegal aliens (er, immigrants) moving into your neighborhood.
And so on. Oh well, we’ll be getting the consent of the sheep (er, the governed) and thereby conforming to the spirit of The Declaration of Independence, right?
“Do you side with Chicago public school teachers – overwhelmingly Democrats” You might want to look closer at the CTU: https://www.socialistalternative.org/tag/ctu/
Well done. I’m a Southeast Florida Republican but grew up under Governor Reuben Askew’s growth management and Sunshine laws. They’re part of my DNA. But so is capitalism. The last partisan Republican I voted for, and I had to hold my nose to do it, was John McCain. Skipped Romney, the hedge funder, and went straight for Donald Trump. But then there’s his environmental policies. But I saw my local government – Republican Democrats – vote to remove the city from the Regional Planning Council, which previously shot down a major housing project slated to destroy our water supply. Go figure. So your piece, Mr. Beaton, is spot on. Agree on everything. Look up an old YouTube interview by Wm Buckley of Margaret Thatcher. What you’re talking about is called “consensus.” Thanks for everything you do.
I am comfortable with any person whose thought, word, and deed align as one. Also, I am comfortable with any person who does what they talk about and does not talk about what they cannot do. Finally, I am comfortable with any person who is quiet.
Not sure about the last one. In many matters “silence is complicity.”
Of course the only “tribe of one” that I can think of is Cooper’s fictional Natty Bumppo, who is neither fully English nor fully Delaware (Mohican), and who unlike other solitary whites roaming the North American woods (the Jesuit black robes) is “a man without a cross.” A wonderful archetype, if one can handle a life of running through an obstacle course of natural and human enemies, with no place to lay his head. But now I’m touching on another archetype of independent heart and mind.
Think for yourself. While you can before the censors shut down all wrongthink.