Two Competing Moral Frameworks

The growing divide stems from a clash between two distinct moral frameworks. One group values the Rule of Law and individual rights as foundational aspects of liberal democracy. They regard the Rule of Law as paramount, recognizing it as essential for freedom. Historical evidence shows that without it, societies often descend into despotism. Those who prioritize the Rule of Law are acutely aware of this history and refuse to ignore its lessons.

Conversely, the other group primarily values national greatness, encapsulated by the slogan "Make America Great Again." This longing for greatness emerges from a widespread feeling of disorientation and loss. Many feel that life is not as it should be; opportunities seem scarce, and societal changes—particularly those related to immigration—are unsettling. The persistent sense of decline, regardless of political leadership, fuels a demand for a leader who can restore a sense of greatness, prioritizing whatever means necessary to achieve this goal.

This emergence of opposing moral frameworks poses significant risks. It's not merely a matter of differing values as we seek solutions; we are witnessing a historical anomaly where people perceive entirely different problems, facts, and realities. Each side claims its own version of truth, leading to a profound disconnect in communication and understanding. The lack of a shared reality makes genuine dialogue nearly impossible, as political discussions become entrenched in this divisive framework.

The Foundation of the Rule of Law

A moral framework based on the Rule of Law necessitates two core elements: a transparent and consistent application of laws, and verifiable facts that inform us about our circumstances and challenges. These facts create a shared understanding of reality, essential for addressing societal issues, even if debates about solutions remain contentious. While no society applies this principle perfectly, the foundation of verifiable facts is critical. Law must be based on truth, not whims or falsehoods.

However, a society grounded in the Rule of Law does have its shortcomings. Democracy, while rooted in this principle, can be cumbersome and susceptible to corruption. Interests that favor the few can undermine the majority. Winston Churchill famously remarked that "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the alternatives." Within this moral framework, the Rule of Law—anchored in democratic processes—is viewed as the most effective means of governance, allowing people to self-govern.

The Concept of National Greatness

The MAGA movement embodies the call for American greatness, with Trump as its leading figure. Yet, this concept remains nebulous, often distilled to the notion of "America first." This perspective seeks to bypass the complex compromises inherent in global leadership, presenting a singular path toward national elevation.

This ideology allows for the acceptance of "alternative facts," enabling individuals to mold definitions to fit their narratives, even concerning legal matters. The law may be bent, reinterpreted, or ignored if it serves the pursuit of national greatness. In this view, the idea of "greatness" supersedes legal constraints, establishing an entirely different moral universe.

Despite its ambiguity, the concept of greatness tends to prioritize specific values, including the preservation of a white majority and selective law enforcement practices. The overarching sentiment, as illustrated by Trump's statement, "I could shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters," underscores a willingness to overlook legality in favor of perceived national elevation.

Many Americans feel disenfranchised by current realities—economic decline, cultural shifts, and the loss of traditional values—as they confront a world that seems increasingly unrecognizable. This fuels a desire for a return to national greatness.

Historical Lessons

The struggle between these two moral frameworks is not a new phenomenon; it has historically preceded the rise of dictatorships in the West. Figures like Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco shared a disdain for liberalism, rejecting universal principles in favor of fabricated ideologies that justified their regimes. These dictators built complex narratives that served their moral universes, often dismissing the Rule of Law as they sought power.

Public discontent, frequently fueled by economic hardship and ineffective governance, paves the way for such leaders. Today, many Americans express frustration over a political system perceived as broken, contributing to a growing sentiment that calls for systemic change, shared by both right and left factions.

As dissatisfaction escalates, movements can emerge, either from the right or the left. If political institutions can effectively address public grievances, dictatorship can be averted. However, ongoing failures may lead to the rise of dictatorial leaders.

Current Landscape

The bifurcation of American society into two moral frameworks is at the heart of the anxiety felt across the political spectrum. The divide is not merely about differing aspirations but reflects a fundamental clash in belief systems, particularly regarding what sacrifices are acceptable to uphold those beliefs. Advocates of the Rule of Law are often willing to accept the challenges of democracy, believing in the potential for change through political engagement. In contrast, proponents of national greatness endorse any actions that align with their vision, often disregarding legality or ethical considerations.

This divergence in perceived truths has led to a breakdown in political discourse, with each side viewing the other as a threat to its moral universe. This mutual perception of undermining fuels widespread outrage.

The misguided belief that a leader promising national greatness will adhere to core democratic principles is dangerously naive. Dictatorial leaders often rise by exploiting the very principles they claim to uphold. History shows that support for such leaders can lead to catastrophic outcomes, as populations fail to foresee the consequences of their choices.

The Pursuit of Greatness

The aspiration for a great America is not new; political leaders have long invoked this ideal, framing greatness as a product of our liberal principles. Traditionally, American greatness has been associated with the Rule of Law and individual freedoms. What distinguishes the current moment is the tendency to elevate "greatness" above the Rule of Law, rather than deriving it from those principles.

In historical dictatorships, actions were not evaluated based on legality but rather on their contributions to national greatness. Such a shift in focus allows for a dangerous redefinition of morality, placing the dictator's vision above foundational principles.

To enact this vision, a leader must first articulate it clearly, positioning liberal values and the Rule of Law as obstacles to be overcome. This process often involves manipulating the judiciary and transforming government roles into loyalty tests, ultimately leading to the erosion of legal norms in favor of the dictator's agenda. History provides ample examples of how this trajectory unfolds.

In recent times, Trump has been a singular figure in articulating such a vision, resonating with a disenchanted populace and ascending to the presidency. His tenure has been marked by divisive rhetoric and actions that challenge established norms, culminating in the events of January 6, 2021. His ongoing promotion of falsehoods exemplifies the moral universe he continues to propagate, dismissing established truths and institutions in favor of a singular vision of greatness.

Currently, no opposing figure on the left possesses a similar combination of rhetoric, ambition, and political power.

Concern for Our Nation

The current national mood reflects a profound conflict between these two moral frameworks. America finds itself at a crossroads, with a historical lesson that suggests victory in this struggle does not require a majority. Unfortunately, victories for the national greatness faction often lead to dire consequences.

I worry for our country as we navigate this contentious discourse, as the pursuit of national greatness blinds many to the dangers it poses. Those advocating for the Rule of Law must confront the reality that their approach has contributed to the current state of political paralysis and looming crises.

As the battle has shifted from a clash of values to a struggle between moral universes, discontent simmers on all sides. Extremist movements on both ends of the spectrum seek to dismantle existing systems. A recent poll indicates that nearly 20% of Americans believe armed action may be necessary to "save the country," a sentiment rooted in the desire to protect their moral universe from opposing forces.

My greatest fear is that a moral framework prioritizing national greatness could eclipse the Rule of Law, ultimately leading to the unraveling of American democracy. This concern is not limited to one political side; both are susceptible to this threat. Should either faction prevail, we need only look to the dictators of Europe from the 1920s to the 1960s to foresee the potential consequences. God bless America, indeed, for if the Rule of Law falters, we will undoubtedly need those blessings.

Happy New Year 2022.

Gadwall Jackson Writing the Unspeakable Truth