Rigidity mistaken for principle

by Helen Sabin, Corvallis

At a Ravalli County Republican Central Committee meeting, September 1, Kathy Love, who lost her bid for SD43 to David Bedey, read a four-page letter explaining why she apparently remains absolutely certain that she is right in all instances.

But, one statement deserves attention: “I will sit down and talk with anyone, but I will NOT compromise my Republican principles.” (whatever they are!) 

Love said she offered to talk with other Republicans, but no one accepted because Love seems to confuse having principles with having conclusions permanently laminated and placed under glass.

Ronald Reagan is credited with saying that “…someone who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20 percent traitor.” (https://barrypopik.com/blog/my_eighty_percent_friend_is_not_my_twenty_percent_enemy?utm_source=chatgpt.comImagine that: disagreement doesn’t automatically make someone an enemy)

Love should learn that “principles” provide a framework for making decisions, and are not an intellectual force field preventing evidence or inconvenient facts from getting through.

James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10 that “…Representatives should “refine and enlarge the public views” by exercising judgment in determining the public interest rather than surrendering themselves to faction.”

Judgment means: Listen. Question. Debate. Examine evidence. Hear opposing arguments and, occasionally, changing your mind.

Apparently that last item has been removed from Love’s legislative handbook.

A legislator’s responsibility isn’t to demonstrate ideological purity. 

It is to represent actual human beings and perhaps including those who disagree with her if she can. Yet Love’s repeated insistence that she will not “compromise” her principles sound less like an invitation to dialogue and more like a warning label: Discussion permitted. Persuasion prohibited.

With Art Wittich, the head of the MT GOP, sitting in the room and speaking immediately afterward, a question pops up: was she auditioning for his GOP ideological conformity department?  Or trying to thank him for the money the GOP put out on her losing campaign?  Or what? 

A representative who refuses to reconsider a conclusion can always congratulate herself on consistency and she probably does, but it takes considerably more intellectual effort to listen to someone who disagrees and ask, “Could I be wrong?” 

 That’s called critical thinking!

If Love is really concerned that people aren’t lining up for dialogue, perhaps she should consider an uncomfortable possibility: People generally don’t enjoy entering a conversation when they suspect the other person has already written the verdict.

Principles matter but so do a true willingness to listen, judgment, humility, evidence, and the ability to think. 

Otherwise, “I will never compromise my principles” becomes a rather unimpressive way of saying: “I’ve already made up my mind, so please don’t confuse me with the facts.”