My monthly Socratic discussion group met in mid-July with the intent of examining the proposition that China represents an existential threat to the United States. We call our monthly topics, distributed in advance with a suggested reading list, provocations due to their inherent controversy. We expect all the heat to be in the provocation itself with the light emanating from our serious and dispassionate application of the Socratic method.
The attempted assassination of Donald Trump provoked, if you will, a change in our subject matter.
The focus shifted to the language of politics and its descent into increasing intemperance to the point of serving as a catalyst to violence. We weren’t buying into the woke claim that speech is itself violence but clearly speech can stimulate those who have no societally acceptable moral boundaries on their actions.
We, the Socratic group, are lovers of and avocational students of history. We were able to establish a list of times in the past when the rhetoric was equally provocative. Cicero’s attacks on Marc Antony, the Hamilton/Jefferson anonymous ad hominem attacks through partisan newspapers, and pretty much anything anyone said about slavery in the 1850s all came to mind.
The speech of those times often did lead to violence but something seems different to us today and not just because we are condemned to live it. One of our group, a retired college professor, described us as swimming in the narcissism of social media exhibitionism. I wish I had said that.
When looking back to Cicero and the first century before Christ, public rhetoric was prized above all, except maybe for bloodshed in the public arenas. We likened our American elections to the electoral process of late republican Rome when it all came down to which candidate could spend enough of his own funds, or those drawn from the public fisc, in spectacles. Bread and circuses was the accepted political strategy then. It worked … at least for a while.
Is 21st-century America any different?
Extremizing our rhetoric serves a useful political purpose. We can get agitated over something or someone to the point of monopolizing our minuscule attention spans. Agitation allows us to avoid talking about the issues themselves, which can be hard work.
Our presidential elections are not about policy; they are about people. JD Vance is already a target for a left-leaning national media. Kamala Harris is benefiting from a brief honeymoon that will end after the Democratic convention. And then there is Donald Trump, who just can’t help himself.
Even though our group consists of conservatives of various schools of thought — classical liberal, libertarian, common good conversative, national conservative — we differ on our opinions of Trump and his candidacy. Most are cautious if not completely negative but several are supportive. It makes for lively discussion, all collegial and respectful.
But here is the conundrum. Like or dislike Donald Trump, what options do thinking conservatives have? I posed the following question to the group, in good Socratic style:
What is the one thing, policy, personality or issue, that would determine which candidate will get your vote in November?
Several refused the dilemma of a binary choice, something Socrates would not have allowed. This came from frustration with the two-party system in which sufficient choices are not available. To them, it was not a binary choice between Biden (now Harris) and Trump. They would consider third-party candidates or not voting at all as the morally best choice.
Most of us, however, had a pivotal issue. Many responses were liberty-related, such as which candidate would promote free-market economics instead of state capitalism or socialism. The very practical concern over Supreme Court nominees was mentioned as was the question of who would have the nuclear codes. Social issues such as family values and patriotism made the list.
We don’t always arrive at a conclusion at these sessions but we do leave with what we call an action plan. That may be a misnomer because it is hardly a grandiose, “save the world” sort of agenda. We simply want to suggest actions that each of us as private citizens can take to make things better, better by our definition at least.
There is a Chinese proverb that it is better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness, so we developed a short list of candles to light: Focus on policy issues; create study groups similar to ours; plant seeds even if we won’t live long enough to see them sprout; fight the good fight even when it doesn’t prevail because that is what good people do.
Meanwhile, we will continue to live in a cartoon world created by the likes of Hanna-Barbera. It sure does seem like Loony Toons some days.
Mark Franke, an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review and its book reviewer, is formerly an associate vice-chancellor at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne. Send comments to [email protected].
