89 views 26 min 0 Comment

Sunday Books & Culture

- November 12, 2023

This Week: EDITORIAL: Books tore us apart, they can bring us together | Local author Steve Watkin’s Stolen by Night | UMW Theatre’s production of Matilda.

Books Tore Us Apart … Now They Can Unite Us

The new school board – and most important, those parents who supported the change in power – need to live up to the ideals they said they supported. The first test comes December 2.

- Published posts: 410

by Martin Davis EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

0 Comments
    Leo B Watkins

    Apparently there’s now a limit on comment length. You think they would let you know what the rules are somewhere.

    Anyway – short version – if you are continually compromising with the uncompromising – eventually you’ll find yourself in a place you no longer recognize. And being represented by Tara Durant, when either Joel Griffin or Monica Gary is who you preferred.

    So maybe your plan isn’t as smart as you think, eh?

      Leo B Watkins

      Now I’m curious what the parameters are. So I’ll try posting the original comment this way, as a work around. Maybe it’ll work, maybe it won’t.

      I went to the grocery store the other day. As I often do. NO matter the store, the transaction’s pretty much the same. I choose what I want, walk to the counter, pay for it, leave.
      On the rare occasion something is wrong, I return, we talk about it – attempt to reach a satisfactory consensus – and consider the matter resolved. If not, we both have known options for resolution. Suit, complaint, courts.
      That resolution, though not perfect, is built upon tenets of trust. Things that are given. So built into the process, we rarely think about them. We don’t need to.
      That money is a satisfactory tender. Laws are applicable. We have a mutual desire for success.

      The food they sell me isn’t laced with an unexpected poison (fentanyl as compared to alcohol, sugar, or nicotine). They will not rob me on the way out of the store. I will not try to steal the item without payment.
      It works. Mostly. Modern capitalism is built upon those intangible trusts. From them, we all profit.
      But what if one of us has proven themselves, time and again, to be untrustworthy? Who has goals beyond mutual benefit?
      Would we approach the transaction the same way with a kidnapper, terrorist, or enemy? Someone who wants something more than to just make a profit. Who has other aims rather than just our mutual success?
      What then?
      Is it wise to approach the transaction the same way?

        Leo B Watkins

        Time and again, many – myself included over the last 30-40-50 years, have tried to apply those same rules of marketplace consensus, respect, and compromise you describe to the political arena.
        Yet, increasingly, over that time – whether they call themselves the Republican Party, conservatives, Christian nationalists, Tea Partiers, John Birch Society, MAGA, or whatever; they have increasingly realized that they are most successful when they operate in that system, with the stated goal of destroying it.
        What has morphed from the original Republican narrative of being conservative, and pro-business, yet realizing that the social constructs inherent in 20th century American democracy have been a core part of their success, has now become a structure – where at least on paper – they are looking to destroy the 20th-21st century American democratic republic we all depend upon.
        What then?
        When you are seeking to compromise with the uncompromising, how do you do it? When you are dealing with those who are not looking to work within the system, but rather to use your faith in the rules of that system to destroy it, and place you under their power.
        Again, what then?

          Leo B Watkins

          In a way, it’s ironic. In that, often, though they see themselves as independent – and therefore are contemptuous of our form of government – they are the ones most dependent upon it. The school teacher, firefighter, cop, or soldier who is anti-government – yet gladly takes a government paycheck every week. Who enjoys much better medical care, paid time off, defined retirement benefits, etc. as a member of that government than they would as a common laborer in the system they claim to despise.
          Also, the business owner, farmer, builder. Getting low cost loans to improve his land because he is polluting his neighbors with his activity. Tax write offs, subsidies, oil and tax credits. Etc. Access to public roads underwritten by those very taxes they despise. The deficit didn’t explode because working people got their tax payments lowered to 15%. They still pay over 1 dollar out of every 20 for Social Security whereas a rich man quits paying once he gets over $150k. Which happens for someone like Elon Musk about what, January 3rd? They don’t mind welfare, they just don’t like it for poor people.
          A country boy can indeed survive, long as his dole check comes every month.
          And let’s not forget the most holy. Definitely let’s don’t forget them. Competing with the private sector with gyms, daycares, coffee houses, etc. All while enjoying tax free status. Why do they receive that, when – as you note – one of the first commandments of our Bill of Rights is that Congress should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” – so why do they get a monetary pass on their weight room?
          Yet they are all the most contemptuous and detesting of our way of government. “Do not hold us to any standard, or any law, but don’t you dare touch our tax status.”

          Liberty University owns about half of greater Lynchburg; ’cause God needs a Division 1 football team, eh? Really? Is that really what Jesus would do, if He could have gotten the tax breaks. I ain’t buying that. Something is wrong with that picture.
          And don’t forget the Republican state legislatures. The states that consistently vote to tear down the federal system are the ones who typically receive the most money from it. Which was why Mitch McConnell quieted down pretty quick when Chuck Schumer offered to have states only receive from the federal government the money they paid into it. Fact is, Republican states are welfare states.

            Leo B Watkins

            So the question is, is your suggested meek and trusting method of compromise with the uncompromising in the best interests of those of us who do believe in the America of today?
            It’s certainly more enjoyable. Pleasant. And tempting. I can see why you and others like it. It is the path of least resistance. Yet, often time, the easier way is not necessarily the best way. I wish it were, but it isn’t.
            When time and again, you compromise with the uncompromising, eventually you’ve moved so far in their direction – you no longer are where you thought you were.
            Best example I can give is immigration. I think of my views on the matter, and they mesh perfectly with the ones that were expressed by HW Bush and Reagan in their debate for the Republican nomination in 1980:

            https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=bush+reagan+debate+immigration&mid=CBA21940F3C7644CEE18CBA21940F3C7644CEE18&FORM=VIRE

            I have pretty much kept those views my whole life; views of compassion, honesty, and pragmatism regarding how we treat a whole class of citizens – and yet – whereas 40 years ago – they would have landed me solidly in the Republican camp – now days I would be run out as an apostate. A, dare I say it, liberal.

            Yet, I haven’t moved an inch. So who moved?
            Likewise, Obamacare was originally a nationalized version of the Romneycare plan that had been successfully implemented in Massachusetts.

            Suggested as a compromise, which Democrats and independents accepted – when they really wanted the guaranteed healthcare that the rest of the first, as well as most of the second world enjoys.
            Yet Republicans, rather than accepting the compromise that was based upon their very own ideas – look to undercut it every chance they get. Is that good faith?

            Leo B Watkins

            Now sure, we’ll muddle along – when the Tom Cotton’s, Mitch McConnells, Ted Cruz’s, or Glenn Youngkin’s are in charge. They are only paying lip service to the Klan, they don’t really mean it.
            Going along just enough to keep in the game. But when push comes to shove, they just want to feed of the government teat with the power they receive. They don’t really want to destroy America. Why would they, nobody depends upon it more.
            So if they were all you had to worry about, yeah – your way would probably work about as well as it has the last 40-50 years. Not too well, getting worse and worse, sicker and sicker, poorer and poorer. But like the frog in the slowly warming water – yeah – it’ll work until one day it doesn’t.
            But what about when folks like McConnell, Gingrich, Hannity, etc. have been telling a lie so long, not even they really recognize it as a lie. What then?
            That’s when you get your Twiggs, Gosars, MGTs as we see now. They’ve said it so long, so loud; they actually believe it. They don’t realize it’s a cynical bargaining position, not a fact.
            Or worse, when a Trump takes over – who is so morally defunct in his own right – right and wrong are irrelevant. It is all just a matter of him, and for himself – he would destroy the world or anyone in it. And if he has to empower zealots like Netanyahu in Israel until war breaks out, so what if it saves him.
            What then?

            Leo B Watkins

            I think we’ve seen, with January 6th, children in cages, book bans, tiki torch parades, civil liberties overturned, dreams of invoking martial law what happens then. And yet you suggest doing more of the same. Will it work?
            Probably not.
            Is that the abyss you desire?
            Not me.
            On election day, Ms Uphaus wrote a very informative article about election day. Did you read it?
            Included in the article, were comments from a Mr Dahloff:
            Protecting access to abortion was also a top issue for UMW freshman and first-time voter Caleb Dahloff, but he identified “fighting within politics” as his “single biggest issue.”

            “I hate it so much,” Dahloff said. He said his disgust at the finger-pointing in politics led him to vote for Monica Gary, the independent candidate for Virginia Senate District 27.

            Dahloff said he worries that his vote for Gary will mean a win for the Republican candidate, Tara Durant, and that he encouraged his friends to vote for the Democrat, Joel Griffin.

            “But for me, I felt like I had to vote for Monica Gary on principle,” he said.

            His position reminded me of your own. Like yours, I sympathize with it, but I do not share it. I too wish that Virginia had ranked choice voting. If so, Ms Gary would have been my second choice. Ms Durant my third, Mr Strickland – not at all.
            But if wishes were fishes, we’d all cast nets.
            We may wish for things to be one way, but until they are, we’d better operate in the world that exists.
            I too dislike the arguing in politics – but if my guard dog is fighting with a wolf to protect my flock – choosing to take my support from the guard dog and giving it to one of the sheep because then it will be quieter, is not what I would call the best solution.
            As Mr Dahloff presciently noted.
            In that – the support given to Ms Gary by folks like him and yourself was enough in a close fight to mean that neither Ms Gary nor Mr Griffin will now be representing this district. With the power of incumbency – they may never be in the next 20 years. Though the majority of voters would have preferred one or the other.
            Well done, gentlemen. Well done.

            Leo B Watkins

            Fortunately, the rest of the state chose wiser. So the damage is staved off for another day. But still. That was despite your choices, not because of them.
            So maybe the solution is not just to rest on our laurels that we’ve managed to put out the fire and can start cleaning up. With the assumption that those we are working alongside also want what is best for our system. When many of them state they want to destroy that system and replace it with their own.
            Go into our dealings with such folks with our eyes wide open. Willing to work toward resolution when able, but also with a solid foundation of core principles that we will not compromise.
            Yes, follow the law. Yes, work toward consensus.
            But I like this country. Our laws, our government, our Constitution, our rights. There are core values that we should not apologize for.
            Honest accounting. Rule of law. Science, knowledge. Kindness, empathy, meritocracy.
            Let’s not be so accommodating that we no longer recognize what we’re trying to protect.
            Like someone once said – “Walk softly, but carry a big stick.”

    dorothy miller

    After being thoroughly repudiated by the voters of Spotsylvania County the decent thing for Mark Taylor to do is resign. If he has any sense of fairness he will not continue to take over a quarter of a million dollars a year for a position for which he is not qualified, and for a performance of which the majority of voters strongly disapprove.

    Mary and Erik Nelson

    As usual, Leo Watkins breaks things down rather nicely. The two-party system in a democracy works when those who don’t get enough votes to win an election remain the loyal opposition. One of our parties has forgotten that. The result is that when an election does not go their way, insurrectionists storm the capitol and those already inside the chambers of government try to bring down the system from within. There is too much at stake for fools to be taken in by so-called third-party candidates and waste their vote “on principle.”