The Devil Among Us

Jesus said, as recorded in John 8:32: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” His statement was about discipleship and eternal life, but it is one of those timeless, profound statements which can have universal meaning. Truth = freedom.

We are in the midst of the most divisive presidential campaign in my memory. That is true to a hyper extent in the Republican primary. Voters are polarized to extremes not seen in my lifetime and maybe never. This polarization is rooted in complex reasons that I will simply summarize as a feeling of being fed up with a tone-deaf, out-of-control federal government that no longer follows the will of the electorate. A more elaborate and detailed explanation can be found in the excellent article, “The Great Republican Revolt” by David Frum.¹

I honestly believe that the vast majority of Americans want the best for their families and for the country. But good intentions don’t always translate into good methods or good results. Polarization can stimulate changes for good. But it can also bring about divisiveness to the point of self-destruction. When polarization causes deviation from the truth, then it becomes a force for destruction. The assertion that the end justifies the means is almost never correct.

Deviations from the truth can be caused by ignorance and they can be caused by willful lying. We can offer some grace for the former – not so much for the latter. I believe that in the current Republican primary there is a serious shortage of truth. Here is an example of which I write – an assertion that is postulated by some out of ignorance and by many out of willful lying to try to nominate their favorite candidate against the will of the people. Tom Bevin, Executive Editor of Real Clear Politics said Sunday on Fox News: “70% of Republicans think the person who gets the most votes should be the nominee.”² This is wrong in so many ways but at least in three principal ways. Firstly, it is contrary to the Republican National Committee rules. Since the advent of the Party in 1854, the rules have always required a majority to nominate³. A majority is half the total allocated delegates plus one – that’s 1237 delegates in 2016.

But more importantly, in a very practical sense, requiring only a plurality of votes for a nomination is averse to selecting the best nominee. This is demonstrable by a simple example. Let’s say there are four Democratic primary candidates who are still in the race at the national convention: an avowed Communist, a left-of-center progressive and two middle-of-the-road liberals. In today's dysfunctional society this is not an implausible scenario. The Communist receives 28% of the popular vote, the progressive 26% and the liberals 24% and 22% respectively. But the Democratic electorate knows that nominating a Communist would be political suicide in the general election. In this example, and in fact in the general case, it is never a good rule to nominate a candidate on a simple plurality. This illustrates the fundamental problem, and is exactly why both current political parties require a majority to nominate.To carry the proof further, suppose the same set of candidates were running, except that the liberal who had in the first case won 22% had dropped out early in the campaign after receiving only 2% of the vote. In this second scenario, the Communist receives 31% of the popular vote, the progressive 29% and the remaining liberal 38%. This example demonstrates what should have been intuitive from the first set of results – that most of the electorate preferred a middle-of-the-road liberal over a Communist or a left-leaning progressive. Requiring a majority to nominate is a very prudent rule. 

There is a third, and not insignificant, reason why parties require a majority. That is because the parties want as many party members as possible, i.e. a strong coalition, behind their nominee. That is not remotely possible with less than a third of the popular vote, or even less than a majority. And in fact, in the example 72% of the party doesn’t want to nominate a Communist, and would presumably prefer any of the other three. To nominate the Communist would be to seriously disregard the intent and will of the electorate. This example perfectly demonstrates why parties have runoff elections and why the parties rightly require a majority.

Applying the example to the Republican primary, for the sake of discussion and accepting as fact that a leopard can’t change its spots, let’s just say that Rubio, Kasich and Cruz are conservative candidates, and Trump is apolitical. If you don’t like apolitical, then use not-conservative, liberal, different, unknown or whatever word you choose to characterize Trump. I think we can all agree that he’s a different kind of candidate. As of today, Trump has received 40% of the popular vote, Cruz 29%, Rubio 16% and Kasich 15%. Sixty percent of the electorate prefers a conservative and 40% prefers something different.

Trump supporters are particularly rabid about arguing that the candidate with the most delegates should win the nomination on the first vote, majority or not. Would they be so insistent if Ted Cruz or John Kasich had the most delegates? Of course not. This is simply a case of setting aside the truth to support a policy that is favorable to their candidate. But more importantly and to the point, Trump and his supporters are asserting that if Trump doesn’t win the nomination, he will have had it stolen from him and in the same breath threatening violence as an aftermath of the result. This is just one of several example of the Devil among us in this campaign. Such actions are extremely divisive, serve to break up the party, and will virtually guarantee a Clinton presidency. The lies are stoking the embers of anger and fear into a raging fire that will surely burn down the house.

What the party needs now is a lot of rational thinking, setting aside personal dogma for the benefit of the country as a whole, coming together as a party and lessening of the “nobody-but-Trump” or “never-Trump” rhetoric. For sure we need to stop the threats of physical violence or boycotting the general election if Trump doesn’t win. And we need a lot more truth and a lot fewer misleading assertions and outright lies.

May God have mercy on our country.

References:

1.       The Great Republican Revolt, by David Frum, The Atlantic, Jan./Feb. 2016, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/

2.       Tom Bevin, Executive Editor, Real Clear Politics, 4/25/16 on FNC: “70% of Republicans think the person who gets the most votes should be the nominee.”

3.       History of the GOP, https://www.gop.com/history/