The rise of non-negotiable, contradictory logic in picking a president

The inability to clearly define what we share as Americans has led to a focus on individual and group needs rather than the national good. (Getty image)

A number of Jewish Americans are now suggesting that they will vote for Donald Trump because the Biden administration is insufficiently supportive of Israel, and not concerned enough about antisemitism.

Arab Americans, in some number, are saying publicly that they will not vote for a second term for the Biden administration, in order to rebuke them for their support of Israel.

Billionaires generally are endorsing Trump for President, apparently fearing the current administration is too liberal and will increase financial burdens on the wealthy.

Many on the American left wing will not endorse voting for Biden/Harris in 2024 as this administration will not sufficiently burden the wealthy.

Much as it pains me to agree with Rhode Island’s anchorman , Gene Valicenti, we are living in a time when people want what they want, exactly when and how they want it (as he regularly says on his morning radio show). And when the demands are nonnegotiable, and contradictory, there appears to be no way forward.

I am not minimizing the goals and concerns of any of the above groups. On the whole, they all have articulated positions on the issues that have considerable appeal, and urgency, for like-minded individuals. And all can argue that what is important from their perspective is also good for the country.

But I will not pretend I do not understand the complexity of trying to govern a country as diverse in opinion, needs, and affiliations as is the United States of America. Especially in a time of so much conflict in the world at large, and within our web of alliances and international relationships.

If we are polarized as a nation, which may or may not be as profound as reporting seems to indicate, one way it is being expressed is in political decisions based on concerns not for the country as a whole, but for the issues most central to our closest affinities. Because we are not able to clearly define what we share as Americans in any cohesive way, we are freed to focus on the needs of our own group rather than the national good.

There has been quite a lot written about our loss of social cohesion and sense of common citizenship, and what it might look like to begin to bring it back. Perhaps it would look like more education, a national service requirement, some kind of shared, inspirational goal (preferably not a war). But these are deliberate processes, and we cannot pause time, and slow the process of the international conflicts, elections, and policy decisions that would all benefit from our having some sense of common goals.

Because we are not able to clearly define what we share as Americans in any cohesive way, we are freed to focus on the needs of our own group rather than the national good.

Both political parties suffer from this phenomenon, but our current Democratic President, because he cannot ignore his diverse constituency as he runs for a second term, suffers the most. And this fractiousness is giving explicit or tacit approval to a second Trump term. That’s even though Trump’s expressed goals are flatly autocratic, and potentially theocratic, as laid out explicitly in Project 2025 and in his campaign speeches. Even now that he is a convicted felon.

What Trump is offering us, is something that appears to some to be a solution to our disunity — the removal from the body politic of the diversity of opinions, and of people. He suggests he will stop much of the immigration to the United States, and deport many who are here based on their ethnicity and/or political expressions. He will remove from power those who disagree with him, and clamp down on protest and free speech. He will make us “one,” not by uniting us, but by limiting who we are. I am convinced that, on some level, this is his appeal.

The problem of course is that if America has ever been a great nation, ever been exceptional, it is because of our acceptance of diversity. And it’s because of the scope of brilliance, enterprise, and culture that has been included in that embrace. An embrace that began at the very beginning, and most completely, here in Rhode Island in 1636.

We may have a lot of work to do to fulfill even our original promise. Solutions may seem elusive and difficult, but we cannot get there on a path of repression and exclusion that gives the lie to our founding values. It would deform us, like amputating needed limbs, in addition to being horribly, morally wrong.

The post The rise of non-negotiable, contradictory logic in picking a president appeared first on Rhode Island Current .