BYRON HARVEY

The past ten years or so have been a turbulent time in our nation’s politics, and have introduced divisions that few would have imagined at the outset. It would take a long time to catalog each of these; my purpose is to talk about just one of these divisions, one that touches me directly: though I have changed very little in my approach to politics, I am now politically estranged from the vast majority of people whom I had counted as fellow travelers (note: “politically” estranged needn’t, shouldn’t, and thankfully for the most part hasn’t, entailed personal estrangement). I don’t find this a particularly fun place to be, a “man without a party”, as it were; I wish it were not so.

 

And yet I have little choice: I refuse to compromise what I believe to be essential core values in the name of “getting along” or “winning” or “belonging” or what-have-you. So I walk a path less-traveled.

 

But the question remains: how do I find myself so out-of-step with the current political zeitgeist? Why do I vote–yeah, think–so differently from people whom I assumed were compatriots not all that long ago? I have an analogy that I think explains it, but first, let’s dispense with some possible explanations as to why I no longer walk alongside many people politically.

 

I could be stupid.

 

I could be crazy.

 

I could be uninformed or misinformed.

 

Alternatively, my former fellow-walkers could be any of these things, or some combination.

 

Allowing for the possibility that I am stupid or crazy–I have been called both and worse–I generally reject those characterizations, both of myself and (at least by and large) of my estranged brethren (though I allow for the possibility that some are truly uninformed or misinformed; this is a massive problem in society today, and getting worse). But no, I hope I am not stupid or crazy; I don’t think people who disagree with me are either. I promise I am not uninformed.

 

Nor do I believe I am misinformed. I have no cable news stations in my channel lineup, so I have neither access nor desire to watch the latest fulminations of CNN, MSNBC, or FoxNews. Though I am not afraid to read the ideas of someone on the left–no one confident in his beliefs should be–my typical news diet comes from center-right organizations, and I am especially careful to take in news sources that are circumspect, willing to give credit to whomever it is due, and to criticize irrespective of political party or leaning (in other words, the kind of things we used to call “journalism”).

 

So what explains this estrangement? Here is my best analogy: we (myself and my politically-estranged friends) are not walking the same path, and it’s likely that at least some of these friends are not headed toward the same destination (a more sobering conclusion).

 

Allow me to elaborate. I have a destination toward which I believe our politics should orient itself, a desired set of means, if you will, which I believe hold the potential to maximize freedom, justice, and human flourishing. I call it “Reagan Conservatism”, and I have proudly claimed that title since I cast my first presidential vote in 1980. Though not an exhaustive list, I would offer the following as bullet points:

 

• Fidelity to the Constitution
• The rule of law
• Complete equality before the law
• Robust individual rights, including the right to life
• Limited government
• Checks and balances
• National sovereignty, include the right to enforce border security
• Strong defense
• Fiscal responsibility
• Free market capitalism
• “Cultural conservatism”, at least generally speaking

 

So far, so good; I think that many, hopefully most of the friends who seemed to be on that same path as I still want to end up somewhere in the vicinity, at least, of these principles. But the question that seems germane for the moment is this: what path will best get us to those desired ends? And herein is the rub; this is why I say that while for many, we share a desired destination, we are not–and possibly never have been–on the same path toward that destination.

 

This is perhaps the most important place where I see our paths diverging: merely electing leaders who (ostensibly) are committed to these principles is not for me, and never has been, enough (a discussion for another time involves whether or not our current crop of leaders is truly committed to these principles; that seems to me a pretty difficult case to make). Rather, I believe, as I always have, that those whom we elect to public office must be people of sufficient character so as to inspire trust in their intentions, their actions, and their words. Someone has said that “character is destiny”; I have never varied from believing this. And as such, I am unwilling to take a shortcut past this critical requirement. I am convinced that we continue increasingly to pay a significant price for ignoring the importance of integrity and character, and I have plenty of receipts to demonstrate the truth of what I see as the high price we are now paying. Of course, a high percentage of people don’t seem to care to see those receipts (which is itself a pretty big receipt); increasingly, people who profess allegiance to either major party demonstrate by their actions–denials with their words notwithstanding–that they value neither truth nor character, at least when it comes to our politics.

 

But I argue: does character matter in business leadership? In family leadership? In financial leadership? In church leadership? In civic leadership? I submit it does…but if so, then why would it not also matter in political leadership, in those who are charged with the direction of our nation, who represent our nation on the world stage?

 

It does. It always has. It always will. This is a hill I will die on. And it seems beyond obvious that this is not a belief shared by very many…at least not any longer (more on that statement later).

 

So why did it seem for so long that we were essentially of one mind? If you will permit me to continue the analogy of the “path”, what seems clear is that because we saw each other regularly at way points, we assumed that we were on that same path. Every two or four years we’d run into each other, high-five on our agreement at the ballot box, and go on our ways. But it’s clear to me now: that we saw each other at way points meant that our trails intersected, but not that they were the same. But be certain of this: my path has never changed.

 

Were we ever on the same path? While it’s undoubtedly true that some never shared my path, it seems undeniable that there are many who, having once been fellow travelers alongside me, left the path. How do I know this? In a poll taken of evangelical believers in 2011, only 30% of evangelicals said that “an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.”  Just five short years later, and paralleling the rise of Donald Trump, that 30% had risen to 72%.  In that short a time period, over 40% of evangelicals who professed that character was actually important had recanted their positions and shrugged off its importance. And so I reiterate: I remain on the same path which I have always traveled; who moved?

 

Nor has my desired destination ever altered. Today, it’s obvious that there are many who, still wanting to claim the mantel “conservative”, cannot by any historic definition of the word be said to be so. They may vote exclusively for the same political party as always, but it is undeniable that the commitments and priorities of the Republican Party can no longer be credibly described as “conservative” (while in fairness the party might be said to retain–or at least profess to retain–certain planks of historic conservatism). Once again, there are plenty of receipts that can be produced to demonstrate that, of the list of conservative principles I produced above, the contemporary GOP is genuinely and convictionally committed to few.

 

Now, it really isn’t my point here to trash the Republicans or even to convince anyone to change their chosen paths (or destinations), much as I might wish that to be the case. It is rather simply to illustrate, by way of analogy, what I think has taken place in the past decade, and why.

 

Oh…and also to say that I grow increasingly convinced that I am on the right path, and I will be swayed neither from my path nor my destination by anything less than rational, persuasive, fact-based, arguments. I will not be bullied, shamed, or scorned off my path or away from my destination. I will gladly walk the path with others; this is certainly my preference. But I will walk it alone if need be, as this is preferable to leaving the path or abandoning the destination for insufficient reasons.

 

So there it is, my best explanation for the political estrangement that has taken place between seeming compadres over the course of the past decade. He who has ears to hear…