OPINION:
A friend of mine who intends to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris recently wondered whether our friendship would survive the upcoming election. Another friend obsessively compares former President Donald Trump’s actions to what Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis might have said or done in similar circumstances. A reader of this column sent three separate, lengthy emails on a Sunday night demanding that I recognize that President Ronald Reagan was a better president than Mr. Trump.
I get it. Election season tends to bring out the most apocalyptic in everyone. That is, of course, unfortunate. What’s more unfortunate, however, is that politics seems to have become a substitute for other, more important things for many.
On an individual level, one’s religion, family, education, health, charity, kindness, diligence and perseverance are all more important to one’s happiness and prosperity than anything that can happen in the nation’s political life. How many obituaries mention for whom the deceased voted?
It is no different on a societal level. A society should be more concerned with its accomplishments in art, technology, prosperity, justice and liberty than those who are the temporary stewards of the state. Indeed, one measure of a society’s sickness or health certainly must be how much energy is spent trying to grow richer and more accomplished versus how much energy is spent trying to reapportion the wealth of the society.
It is not even clear that only one system of government is the most conducive to a society’s long-term health. Consider the Romans, who began as a small nation-state on the edge of the Mediterranean Sea and became the third-greatest empire in history. Along the way, however, they decided to change the way they were governed, mostly because the citizenry had become tired of ruling themselves and decided to let a series of monarchs rule them.
That system worked for 500 years in the West and 1,500 years in the East.
Or, consider the world’s second-greatest empire, the British Empire. The British traveled the other way, from being governed by monarchs to self-rule. It is not clear which was optimal, although the British theater and movie industries and the British people obviously look back on their imperial past with no small degree of nostalgia.
What the British and the Romans, whether the self-ruled or the imperial versions, had in common and what differentiated them from other states was an emphasis on the preservation of the rights of the individual, a sustained focus on the rule of law, and a society built on commerce and technological progress.
This brings us back to the current elections in the United States. When viewed in the wide sweep of history — and that is the best and perhaps the only way to really understand elections — it is impossible to get too agitated about any specific election. If the health of the republic depended on this election — or any single election — it would already be dead. The system is specifically designed to survive idiocy and incompetence in our public officials.
The health of the nation is about much more than any single election. Intact families have children and raise them well. Entrepreneurs start new ventures. There is a huge cadre of competent businesspeople. Caring teachers. Wise and careful judges. There is a brave and resourceful military. Individuals live happy, productive lives.
Keep the circus in perspective, and keep those emails coming.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times. He served in the Reagan and Trump administrations.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.