MysteriousFaith

Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative

An ex-conservative from inside the Beltway comes clean, but does it matter? Is his story worth listening to? If we want to understand how power corrupts, the answer is yes.

Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative

Few human pathologies are more damning or dangerous than the arrogant pursuit of power. Rarely does the statement that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” engender anything but acceptance. We each sense that those in power, as well as those seeking power, are willing to give up a lot, to stand for little, all in the pursuit of power, prestige and social standing. Understandably so, America’s political system has degenerated into little more than a squabble between those in power and those who desire the power they do not have. Today’s social dialogue, especially during election seasons, rarely rises above the standard of tit-for-tat school yard fights. Where real social problems exist, it seems little meaningful dialogue takes place. Why? In large part because those people participating in the debate really are no longer social activists, they are egoists bent on gaining a political position they crave.

Such cynicism within the American electorate has the potential to be diffused when seemingly meaningful groups of people band together in an attempt to articulate a new point or to justify a particular social action. In the early 90’s, Americans witnessed the burgeoning power of one such demographic - the Christian Conservative. Known by various monikers - the Religious Right being the most famous - this group professed to stand for genuine altruism, a form of social activism that sought to bring the essential teachings of Christianity to the political forum. In hindsight this was not a trivial task, as Christian’s name-sake Christ did not seek a political forum for His ideas; rather, He seemed content to focus on the hearts of mankind, believing that true social change came not from policy changes, but from changing men’s hearts.

As the 90’s advanced, this block of voters became a more pronounced political powerhouse. Commentators became increasingly comfortable with throwing out terms like “culture war” to describe the type and tone of policy debates taking place in Washington. Were one to listen to the Conservatives, the future of democracy and perhaps even humanity itself were being threatened. No vote was simply about a law, each vote was about either sliding farther down the proverbial “slippery slope” or drawing a “line in the sand” over a critical social issue. During this time the dialogue became increasingly treacherous; mere disagreement became the hallmark of evil.

It was also during these years that America saw sensationalism and naked propaganda creep into the outworking of social causes. We replayed the 30’s, but this time exchanged Father Coughlin with Rush Limbaugh. Hysteria became the norm - it was reasonable to accuse President Clinton of being involved in drug laundering, ordering murders and being a philanderer of such propensity it made Hugh Hefner green with envy. Certainly every age has been marked by particularly divisive debates, but the 90’s were marked by a vitriol and hatred that had rarely been seen before, especially within America. I speak so confidently of this because it is an experience that I, like David Brock, saw first hand.

During my college years I took my first steps into personal politics. I became the chairman of a College Republican chapter, then ran for State Chairman, and proceeded to build a state-wide network of colleges. My total time of exposure was less than three years; at the end of it, I walked away with a sense that something in the experience was very wrong. In hindsight I recognize my experience led me to see people who were blatant in their pursuit of power for their own benefit. I also can see that our beliefs were not built on core beliefs of social activism or benefiting others. Any “others” we sought to benefit could either do something good for our political or business career or represented the preservation of corporations to maximize their objectives. Upon reflection, I realize that I can honestly think of very few people who I felt shared a belief that conservative principles would genuinely help those in need. We laughed at the poor, trivialized the weak, excused the mentally-ill and trumpeted the cause of individual freedom at the expense of any over-arching social good. We were about consumerism. Our future was clear - the acquisition of power.

I say this now in shame. I say it now recognizing that what centers me most, what must be the point of origination from which all else in my life flows, my faith, would never support such a world view. At that time in my life, becoming successful and powerful was an aphrodisiac. It was a high - and for a bunch of preppy, prudish “wanna-be’s” that was as close as we were going to come to getting a buzz. Now I recognize that this belief system, the power politics I was engaged in, would never have supported a world view where the needs of others are the most predominant theme in my politics.

David Brock’s book Blinded by the Right is an expose of the world of conservative power politics. His book is not about political philosophy - no - it is a personal expose of his experiences. Unfortunately, his experiences show a set of people who view politics as a means to acquire power, not to justify social wrongs or stand for moral truths. It would be a mistake to believe that much of what he describes is unique to the Conservative cause, just as it would be a mistake to believe that altruism does not exist at all in the Conservative party. What is necessary to take away from his book is a note of caution about believing that political players are acting out of their good will. Sure, good politicians exit. No doubt there are lawmakers that believe fervently in acting in ways that better their fellow man. It is without question that policies have authors who ache to act on their social conscience through the laws they give birth to. However, the current state of divisive political dialogue mandates that we step back and evaluate whether or not our leaders are acting in our best interests. One way to originate such a meaningful dialogue is perhaps to critique the means by which they gain and use the power our democracy provides them.

For those who may remember Brock’s name, he was the infamous author of The Real Anita Hill. He also wrote the American Spectator article that launched “TrooperGate.” That is only one-half of the story - Brock has since recanted and admitted that he falsified and actively misrepresented much of the Anita Hill book. In addition, he has confessed to his TrooperGate article being based on witnesses that have since proved to be completely unreliable and very politically motivated. His book is a mea culpa. Conservatives hate him for it - although not as much as they perhaps hate him for coming out of the closet and admitting that he is gay. Liberals love him for it - because in his mea culpa he has given them fuel to the fire of their belief that Conservatives are heartless, soulless and willing to do whatever is necessary to grab power. Those critics I read expressed a mixture of dubiousness and incredulity in believing what Brock wrote. Since much of his book recounts personal stories of the hypocrisy of others, his own hypocrisy frustrates an attempt to take him at his word.

As I reflect upon this book about one month after having finished it, it still leaves me feeling sick to my stomach. I am not easily dissuaded from a belief that much of what he describes is accurate. I am deeply troubled that Conservatives in positions of power may not be simply blinded to the needs of those less fortunate than they, but that they care not a bit about their plight. My center has to be my faith, and my faith mandates that I treat others as I would be treated and that I act towards all in love. As long as today’s political dialogue only encourages the acquisition of power and the maximization of consumer pleasure, the future of our democracy seems uncertain.

previous post: Honesty About Hypocrisy
next post: December 2003 Bookshelf

• Posted in Politics
• no comments
• Trackback
• March 23, 2004

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website