<The Ethics of Political Engagement: Honor vs. Victory>

The Democrats have a longstanding pattern of adhering to self-imposed, unilateral regulations that Republicans conveniently overlook. This dynamic puts Democrats at a disadvantage as they strive to advance their agenda, incurring no cost to their adversaries. In the cutthroat political arena where Republicans operate, the Democrats voluntarily handicap themselves, often leading to losses that could have been avoided.

Consider an illustration from 2021: Oregon Democrats finally gained complete control over redistricting after decades. They had the opportunity to redraw maps to secure a political edge for the next decade or more, a process known as gerrymandering. However, they chose to relinquish this power to an independent commission, which ultimately created competitive districts.

Had this decision been part of a nationwide agreement to abolish gerrymandering, it would have been commendable. Unfortunately, Republican-led states had no intention of following suit, continuing to exploit any advantage they could, often engaging in questionable practices.

In essence, the Democrats opted to engage in battle with one hand tied behind their backs, a choice some might label as honorable. They prioritized integrity over victory, winning a moral skirmish that their opponents weren't even contesting, yet ultimately losing the larger struggle.

The Price of Honor

I frequently draw on pop culture to illustrate my political points, as such references can clarify complex subjects. Throughout history, narratives, parables, and morality tales have served a similar purpose. Today, I offer a lesson from the HBO series Game of Thrones, which, despite fading from public memory, contains moments that resonate with the liberal ideal of honor in conflict.

In season one, Lord Tyrion Lannister finds himself imprisoned by his family's foes, condemned to death by Lysa Arryn of the Vale for alleged crimes. As is his right, Tyrion demands a Trial by Combat, but knowing he stands no chance in direct combat due to his stature, he seeks a champion willing to fight on his behalf.

Bronn, a mercenary accompanying Tyrion, unexpectedly accepts the challenge. If he wins, Tyrion will be exonerated, as the belief is that divine forces govern these trials.

Bronn faces Ser Vardis Egen, a heavily armored knight, but opts for a simple sword, while his opponent is clad in full armor and wielding a large shield. Employing agility and cunning, Bronn avoids Vardis's strikes, eventually outmaneuvering him to deliver a fatal blow.

Lysa is enraged by her champion's defeat. "You don’t fight with honor!" she accuses Bronn.

"No," he replies, gesturing toward the moon door where Vardis has fallen. "But he did."

Navigating the Game

How can one engage in a contest or conflict when one side refuses to adhere to the established rules? Is there such a thing as a fair fight, or is everyone constantly seeking an advantage?

In the 1987 film The Untouchables, a Canadian Mountie expresses disapproval of Elliot Ness's methods in his quest to dismantle Al Capone's empire. Ness retorts, "Yeah? Well, you’re not from Chicago."

At this point, Ness has recognized that winning requires a willingness to get dirty. Earlier, Malone, an Irish cop, advises Ness that entering the fray means going all the way. "If you open the door on these people, Mr. Ness, you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they won’t give up the fight until one of you is dead."

"I want to get Capone," Ness insists. "I don’t know how to get him."

"Here’s how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That’s the Chicago way! Now, do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?"

The Democrats have consistently refrained from fully committing, placing them perpetually on the defensive and trailing behind their opponents. As Malone posed to Ness, I ask the Democrats, "What are you prepared to do?"

"Everything within the law," Ness replies.

"And then what are you prepared to do?" Malone presses.

A Call for Action

In the 1982 film Gandhi, a critical moment unfolds as Indian leaders negotiate with British officials following the Amritsar massacre, where British troops fired on unarmed civilians.

The Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, attempts to reason with them, claiming the British government condemns the massacre. Gandhi interrupts, stating, "It is time you recognized that you are masters in someone else’s home. Despite the best intentions of the best of you, you must, in the nature of things, humiliate us to control us."

Chelmsford counters that the British must maintain order for the sake of their Muslim subjects. Gandhi responds, "All nations contain religious minorities... But they will be ours — not yours."

The British generals express disbelief at Gandhi's assertion that they will one day leave India, but Gandhi insists, "One hundred thousand Englishmen simply cannot control three hundred fifty million Indians if the Indians refuse to cooperate."

Later, a British officer remarks, "Extraordinary little man! ‘Nonviolent, non-co-operation’ — for a moment, I almost thought they were actually going to do something."

This sentiment often resonates with me when observing the Democrats' attempts to counter Republican tactics.

The Power of Nonviolence

Figures like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. championed transformative change against superior forces without resorting to violence. Gandhi counseled his followers to resist oppression without retaliation, emphasizing that they could not surrender their self-respect.

He proclaimed, "They may torture my body, may break my bones, even kill me. Then, they will have my dead body — not my obedience."

While these narratives are cinematic, the principles of Gandhi and King led to significant societal change through peaceful means. Violence, in contrast, often leads to cycles of oppression and authoritarianism, merely replacing one tyrant with another.

Yet, the challenge lies in translating these ideals into action. Many engage in superficial protests, feeling good about participating without risking anything substantial. Such actions often amount to little more than social outings rather than meaningful resistance.

The Question of Commitment

In my more cynical moments, I contemplate responding to aggression with aggression. However, as history illustrates, this path only perpetuates violence. As Martin Luther King, Jr. articulated, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that."

Nonviolence is not merely a moral choice but a practical strategy, as it has proven effective historically. Violent revolutions often lead to new forms of tyranny, as they simply swap one oppressor for another.

However, the real challenge lies in the commitment to nonviolent resistance. It requires profound courage and readiness to face severe consequences, including loss of life, imprisonment, or deprivation of one's possessions.

To embody the spirit of civil resistance, one must be willing to confront the possibility of personal sacrifice. Yet, the question remains: "What are you prepared to do?"

"Everything within the law," we often respond.

"And then what are you prepared to do?" the challenge continues.

Unless we collectively resolve to risk everything for justice and democracy, we will lack the strength to confront tyranny. Unfortunately, I fear that America has grown too complacent and comfortable to embrace such risks, leaving us susceptible to oppressive forces.

Here endeth the lesson.

If you appreciate this discussion, consider following for more insights from David Todd McCarty. For those not subscribed to Medium, signing up grants access to David’s articles and countless others.