THE ROLE OF PARTY LOYALTY. Or in the case of republicans, a roll of party loyalty to wipe your ass.

     Democrats have long puzzled political observers with their independence from a central organization. The Oklahoma humorist, Will Roger's once said, "I'm  not a member of an organized political party, I'm a Democrat." The party has a broad tent, which is accepting of people of color and sexual minorities. A tent that grew over may decades of internal challenges, and once the Dixicrats abandoned the party to become Republicans. For those who question this internecine struggle, let me stress that this is the definition of the (small 'd') democratic process. During the presidential term of our first president of color, we witnessed the Vice-President publicly accept the reality of gay-marriage at a time when the President would have preferred silence. 

     There is no longer a similar debate within the Republican fold. Party loyalty is held in higher esteem than independent thought, or thought in general. This has led to an abundance of examples of ridiculousness among republican politicians and rank file members. From Sara Palin and Michelle Bachman to Louie Gohmert, Steve King and Rand Paul, to such one-time luminaries as Rudy Giuliani, the humor-mill has been working overtime grinding out examples of their craziness. What has caused the Republican party, which once held such intellectual giants as William F Buckley, David Brooks, and George F. Will, to fall to such an embarrassing low? Perhaps it was the rise of Social Media, which allowed people unqualified to write a Letter to the Editor in the era of newspapers, to imagine they are qualified enough to pass on their commentary. The acceptance of the white racists into the Republican party allowed many of these people to rise to power. They were joined by the Christian zealots in the late 70s, who thought Jimmy Carter insufficiently Christian. By the time Reagan removed the Fairness Doctrine from FCC regulations, the intelligentsia of the Republican party became muzzled by the illiterati of red-state conservatism. At this point we might wonder if the party of Lincoln will ever again be the party of Lincoln. 

     The Republicans are not alone in being susceptible to this intolerance. Sharp differences exist in the Democratic party between the centrist, corporate wing of the party and the liberal, Bernie Sanders wing of the party. Those differences have always been there, as recently as the Paul Wellstone wing in the 90s and early 2000s going back to Governor Robert Lafayette of Wisconsin in the early 1900s. While the arguments are spirited there is a level of comity not found among rebublicans. Perhaps because Democrats arise from community activists. That requires building alliances within a community to gain representation. The activism on the right starts from well-funded pressure groups. Religion plays a role on both the right and the left. I would argue that the left is more in tune with the teachings of Jesus. They would disagree, saying Jesus is okay with the accumulation of wealth, and that He would have no problem with intolerance of others for racial, religious, or economic reasons. You can draw your own conclusions.

     Recently I recieved a spam email from JudicialWatch, a rightwing legal pressure group, on that tired rightwing talking point, "cancel-culture". A thoughtful person would be inclined to say, "what's wrong with canceling a subscription if you don't like the content?" The same could be said for not purchasing a product connected to a group with whom you disagree. We on the left call it boycotting. Adam Smith, the eighteenth century economist described this as " the invisible hand of the marketplace". To the right, the marketplace is merely a medium to becontrolled by the central state they claim not to support. Whether there is any culture is open to interpretation. Such an act would be considered heresy to the right. Those of us on the left would be inclined to say that advertising media has changed that invisible hand in favor of the marketers. It makes "boycott" an impotent display, yet it is still one of the tools in our toolbox. 

     Regardless of which side is right, we expect those whom we elect to govern us to govern with tolerance and wisdom. Some of us would go farther to state that without tolerance, there is no wisdom. Whatever the case, the loyalty of the legislators should be for the nation as a whole; not the party. We mourn that loss.