Is Government For The Common Good Anymore?
Moreover, if Biden did so great during the debate and Trump so horribly, why are Democrats trying to change the debate rules?
First and foremost, there was nothing to be proud of in this first round of presidential debates apart from the Commission on Presidential Debates — who did an outstanding job beyond all expectations for putting on an in-person debate during a pandemic.
That’s about where the platitudes and praise end.
I want to raise a larger question.
Do we still believe that government operates for the common good? Or is it just every man for himself? Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the end of the (first) Persian Gulf War, the public trust has been slowly cashed out by unprincipled hacks — politicians and consultants alike — who make a great deal of progress and cash pitting us against them.
We see this in Virginia too often.
Pick any nomination contest. Candidate X rails against Incumbent C and maneuvers to their right. Not that Incumbent C is a slouch, but that the rank-and-file see what is happening in Washington and Richmond, are told by talking heads and social media that someone is trying to (insert issue of import here) and that we need to Stop Them (TM) by getting rid of Incumbent C and replacing them with Candidate X.
Of course, nevermind that Candidate X is just as ineffectual (or worse) than Incumbent C. Nevermind that such a person is one in 140 members of a General Assembly, or one in 535 members of a Congress. We are mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore.
Good people stay out of politics; easily swayed people who listen to the siren songs of political consultants step up at the behest of large donors and special interests, only to be replaced by other easily swayed Candidate X’s should they attempt to exercise anything that resembles conscience.
When Donald Trump first debated Hillary Clinton in 2016, I would have told folks in the first few hours afterwards that Trump lost it handily. That Clinton appeared to be more presidential, calm, polished.
Then social media began to crackle to life. Not only did Republicans believe that Trump absolutely smashed Clinton, but Democrats themselves were utterly dismayed that Clinton had chosen not to fight back.
Fast forward to 2020.
The moment that Biden refused to say that he would not pack the U.S. Supreme Court? The campaign was over; Biden had lost.
Then Chris Wallace (D-Moderator) decided he had to be the absolute worst of all moderators.
You see, a good moderator actually facilitates conversation. Terrible moderators attempt to become a third-candidate, interposing themselves between the candidates and trying to appear “fair” by spearing them both. Thus both participants — having lost their respect for the moderator as a fair arbiter of conversation — run right over top of this third participant.
Where Wallace was most unfair was on the question of violence. Wallace attempted to ask the same question of both candidates:
CHRIS WALLACE: You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out Antifa and other left wing extremist groups. But are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia group and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland.
DONALD TRUMP: Sure, I'm willing to do that.
The problem of course is that Biden was never asked the same question regarding BLM/Antifa. Three dozen cities, over 100 days of rioting and protests… and nothing regarding Antifa?
Then we get to the question of accepting the results of the election and asking supporters not to take violent action.
CHRIS WALLACE: Vice President Biden, final question for you. Will you urge your supporters to stay calm while the vote is counted? And will you pledge not to declare victory until the election is independently certified?
JOE BIDEN: Yes.
. . . yet Wallace never pressed Biden on the question of “staying calm” (is this a euphemism for violence?) should the election go the other way. Wallace instead meekly accepted the answer.
Yet when Trump gave a very similar answer to Biden’s, Wallace was deeply dissatisfied with the answer:
DONALD TRUMP: I'm urging my supporters to go in to the polls and watch very carefully, because that's what has to happen….
CHRIS WALLACE: You're urging them what? What does that mean, not go along… Does that mean you're going to tell your people to take to the streets?
Now here we have a contrast.
Biden has a BLM/Antifa organization at his back that can and has rioted in three dozen cities and threatened to spill into the suburbs, causing billions of dollars in damages.
Trump has the Proud Boys. In Portland.
Somehow, these are supposed to be equivocal threats?
Trying to explain this to our liberal friends who both tolerated and excused the violence over the last several months has been an exasperating experience. Mostly because few people are interested in facts and values anymore; just whatever it takes to spear the opposition.
Fact of the matter is, Trump most likely won the first debate for no other reason than Biden is feverishly trying to change the rules — again.
Yet once again, we seem to be focusing on the wrong questions. The debate format was fair and agreed upon; the participants simply didn’t want to play by the rules.
Instead of an exposition of ideas, we got a contest of ideas. Worse than that, we received a set of verbal fisticuffs squabbling over who gets to impose their ideas on the rest of the country.
But do not assume that the imposition or coercion is equal for a moment.
What Biden and the apologists for BLM/Antifa have done is raise the stakes, seeking a greater good but not a common good. When asked the question about the peaceful transition of power, Trump was absolutely correct:
DONALD TRUMP: So when I listen to Joe talking about a transition, there has been no transition from when I won. I won that election. And if you look at crooked Hillary Clinton, if you look at all of the different people, there was no transition, because they came after me trying to do a coup. They came after me spying on my campaign. They started from the day I won, and even before I won. From the day I came down the escalator with our first lady, they were a disaster. They were a disgrace to our country, and we've caught them. We've caught them all. . . . [Biden] knew about it too. So don't tell me about a free transition. As far as the ballots are concerned, it's a disaster.
The fact of the matter — and it is painful to say, but it is the truth — is that the Democratic Party is no longer interested in government for the common good, but rather government for the greater good.
The hard truth is that we did not have a peaceful transition of power in 2016. Think whatever you will about Trump’s character; the process did not work.
For Democrats to supinely ask Republicans to commit themselves to a transference that they themselves did not submit to is outrageously dichotic. For Democrats to beg Republicans for a peaceful transition of power while BLM/Antifa has burned downtown districts in three dozen cities over a 100 day period is ludicrous in the extreme.
Democrats may wish to play on the good nature of Republicans, but precisely what do they think they are teaching the extremists on the right? When they behave as a caricature of what they think the Tea Party was — a violent, extremist organization committed to violent action?
If the Proud Boys or Tea Party had burned three dozen cities over 100 days, would the Democrats have called them “largely peaceful protesters” — or would they have demanded their utter extirpation from the American landscape?
We know the answer to that.
This is the danger of Biden’s gambit.
There was no peaceful transition of power in 2016 and the Democrats need to own this. The riots of this year all but guarantee that the rules of the game have now changed. Biden’s unwillingness to promise not to pack the U.S. Supreme Court should be shocking to Americans of conscience precisely because they stab directly at the heart of the concept of governance for the common good.
Worse than this? We may be divided more today than at any other time since the American Civil War, but certainly for the lowest possible stakes in the history of human experience. We live in a Golden Age; most Americans have a standard of living today superior to any Rockefeller 100 years ago.
Wages are up, manufacturing is up, American economic and military power remains unrivaled. More Americans are buying homes, immigrants continue to come to America to build businesses and raise families, we enjoy goods and services from around the world.
President Bill Clinton used to tell us that there was nothing that was wrong with America that couldn’t be fixed with what was right with America. President Ronald Reagan used to define the American experience as a shining city on a hill.
Perhaps we as Americans today need to perform a bit more introspection as to whether our generation deserves the American Dream. That seems like a hard truth, but when one half of this country — and it is the Democratic Party — seeks to undermine our constitutional processes at the expense of the other half of this country, then there is no common good at stake anymore.
That is only a problem the Democrats can fix. Republicans can point to the problem, but our best tools are force of argument; not the argument of force. Democrats have chosen the latter in recent months. This is a cheap sort of rigging of the rules that inevitably creates the conditions for unrest.
In the meantime, so long as the Democratic Party continues to refuse govern for the sake of the common good? Americans should treat them with great suspicion, because once they are in power, the rules will indeed change and not to the benefit of those whom are deemed outside the boundaries of polite society.
That our Democratic friends can’t see this remains a problem. That they are immune to reason in this regard — that their option for violence only normalizes violence — quite frankly scares the hell out of me more than any pandemic.
Perhaps this October we can shift the conversation to a more serious tone regarding government for the common good rather than government for the greater good? One almost feels like begging and pleading with the left to see this for what it is. Given that too many reasonable people on the left have excused the violence of the left thus far as “peaceful protests” I am more dismayed than hopeful, folks.
But we can always hope.
Shaun Kenney is the editor of The Republican Standard, former chairman of the Board of Supervisors for Fluvanna County, and a former executive director of the Republican Party of Virginia.