It’s an old-fashioned wake
I was having one of those discussions with my daughter. She is at the age where I’m trying to teach her some more complex concepts. A part of it is preparing her for a complex and sometimes frightening world. Another part is simply building her vocabulary. So, I had her look up “nihilism” on her phone. Nihilism is “the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.” So, in other words there is no objective truth. There really is nothing of value and there are no moral absolutes. Dealing with people that truly believe this is a lonely and frightening existence. Leadership based on this isn’t really leadership at all. Yet, this is where we are.
The new Congress is trying to elect the new Speaker of the House. Candidates have to have 218 votes in order to be Speaker. Technically speaking it doesn’t even have to be a member of Congress. I suppose it could be a member of the minority party, but that would be theoretical at this point. In simplest terms, you simply keep voting until you find one. Kevin McCarthy is supposed to be the new Speaker of the House. He has gotten as many as 201 votes in the elections from the past two days. As I write this, there have been four separate ballots and there is no speaker. This is the first time this has happened since 1923 when it took nine ballots to elect a new speaker.
Watching the modern Republican party is a real life lesson in governing philosophy. Traditional conservatives decried what became known as moral relativism. As best explained, that would be the concept that no one person’s moral compass would be superior to someone else’s. However, that is still far different than nihilism.McCarthy’s behavior over the last few years is a perfect example. He decried the January 6th attacks until he didn’t. He opposed extremism in his own party until he didn’t. He has tried to be all things for all people and is discovering that you really can’t. Someone that will stand for nothing will fall for everything. I’m quite certain that I read that somewhere.
Ultimately there is a difference between believing there is one objective truth and believing there is one objective truth for you. There is a difference between allowing new information and life experience to change your moral compass and never having one in the first place. There is a difference between engaging other people with a different moral compass than your own and engaging someone that believes nothing.I have said this before and I’ll say it again. This is why the Republican party is dying. Conservatism isn’t dying. Major philosophical planks can’t really die. Parties die when they have nothing at their core. Power is not a core belief. Attention is not a central tenet of any governing philosophy. Politics cannot be transactional for very long. If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything. Grab the remote and pop some popcorn. The death of a major political party is something to behold.
Spent yesterday afternoon watching a dramady called Voting for a New House Speaker. Could not help but chuckler and chortle! I’m all set for today’s episode. Just one thing. I’m out of pop corn!
1Actually, power is a core belief for Autocrats and Despots. It doesn’t work well in a Democracy, though.
2This actually reminds me of an article I saw long ago. Apologies, just have the concept and not the reference.
It was about how “trustworthy” Christians felt toward non-Christians. Essentially, the surprising message was that Christians felt Satanist were more trustworthy than Atheist, because they interpreted Satanist at least believing in something where Atheist lacked any belief and its moral compass.
Now, Atheist do not lack a belief or moral compass. But the perception that informed the sample population fascinated me. I see similar in the political rhetoric. Words are bandied about and people are painted with these words–without comprehension of the meaning of them beyond “bad/ undesirable.”
Thanks for the interesting read. I think that we keep seeing that any moral compass for many politicians–especially on the current right–is non-existent. This has taken them from a the morality of right/wrong, good/bad to tribalism and power trip only!
3Trumpf-endorsed Qevin Mccarthy can’t get the votes again today on a 4th vote. His opposition wants an even more radical and obnoxious speaker. The house will be a scary place.
4The GOP for the last thirty years, at least, have existed solely to promote the activities that their donors, aka paycheck providers, require. A side hustle for them is a good dog and pony show for their gullible base. So far so good. Even as McCarthy loses for a fifth time, the base is probably happy.
5Make that 0 for 6 for mccarthy. He’s been trying to have some members not vote by just saying “present” thinking he could then win with less than 218 votes. I’m no mathematician but if Jeffries continues to get a solid 212, seems his scheme could get Jeffries elected. We should be so lucky.
6McCarthy’s latest quote:
“You see the number of votes. We have 90% of the votes. I’ve never seen a body where 10% is going to control the 90%. It just doesn’t happen.”
First, what is this “we” BS? Does he think he’s now the Queen of Freedonia? But more importantly, he’s ignoring the 212 votes for Jeffries. So by the miracle of modern arithmetic, that means he’s got only 47.4% of the votes.
7Of course, the most MAGA thing ever would be for the former hairdo offered to step in and be the consensus speaker. I’m not sure whether to be frightened by that possibility or overwhelmingly entertained.
8Professor, when I read that the first thing I thought was, Well damn, that’s some new math.
9And of course I then remembered that term from the sixties and seventies, but had never really paid much attention to it.
So I googled it.
And according to Wikipedia it referred to a change in the ways math was taught to kids, especially in America.
After Sputnik.
Because we needed to keep up with Russia’s allegedly superior braniac rocket scientists.
Hmmm.
And now repugnantcans want us to change our math skills once again, so that the answer to any equation can only be found on Fox news.
So lemme see.
That annoying critical thinking stuff discouraged so folks won’t have to bother themselves with pesky questions.
Check.
When they can get their answers fed to them by “appropriate” sources like fox, Facebook and truth social.
Check.
To questions they didn’t even know to ask until they were fed to ’em from….. fox, Facebook, and truth social.
Da.
I mean check.
I think I’m starting to hear balalaikas ringing out.
Hell’s bell’s, Prof. It’s like Deja Vu all over again.
Only this time, the friendly folks at the G.R.U. are helping repugnantcans get it right this time.