We look forward to the day when we can call ourselves Republicans again

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The two of us look forward to the day when we can call ourselves Republicans again. It’s not that we have moved leftward philosophically, as we are just as conservatively inclined as we have been for most of our adult lives. Rather, there is too much about current-day Republican politics that not only runs counter to what it wisely stood for, but often does so offensively, as in Donald Trump slandering and threatening opponents daily, and with the great preponderance of Republican leaders acquiescing to the ugliness.

The same holds regarding Trump’s exhibiting zero human compassion when boasting about deporting millions back to the often-horrific situations they came from. Better securing our borders is essential, and deportations, at some level, are necessary. But pursuing the latter vengefully is beneath us.

(Update: We wrote this article three weeks before President Trump’s inaugural address on Monday. Unfortunately for the nation and world, his graceless speech confirmed virtually every criticism we make below about him and our former party, including his perpetual disregard for facts.)

One of us (Pearlstein) served in the U.S. Department of Education during the Reagan administration when Bill Bennett was secretary. At a news conference in which Bennett argued for more character education in American schools, a reporter questioned its importance. To which the secretary asked, in return, if the reporter might be interested in the character of a babysitter he wanted to hire for his children. I don’t recall if the reporter responded, but the centrality of character had been exquisitely made in a handful of words, not that there seems to have been much carry-over to the upper reaches of Republican life these days. Don’t fistfuls of indictments mean anything anymore?

So as not to be misunderstood, nothing here suggests that Democrats and progressives are models of political proportion either.

As noted, one motivation for this article has been our displeasure in recent years with too-few Republicans adequately challenging rude rhetorical and other excesses — but also recognition that the two of us have been equally guilty in our seeming acquiescence on the subject. Challenging one’s own team is not just hard, it can also be politically and socially risky, though neither one of us has been shy about doing so in other situations. Bell, for example, who is African American, has criticized minority communities and policies in Minnesota and nationally for decades, though neither one of us has been a public profile in courage in the subject at hand. But it’s time, late as it is, to speak up and challenge what is civically amiss with the Republican Party.

Beyond matters of demeanor and tone, we disagree with the current-day Republican Party in several other key areas.

It is good that Trump has expressed support for H-1B visas making it possible for highly trained engineers, scientists and others to work and contribute here. Yet the fact this is a contentious issue in the party reflects a counterproductive skepticism and opposition to legal immigration. As they say diplomatically, this is “unfortunate,” as there are compelling economic and other reasons why we must embrace and continue our country’s history of lawful immigration.

Then there is trust in our institutions. It’s hard to forget, for instance, how Trump, in 2018, on worldwide television, sided not with what U.S. intelligence services were saying about Russian interference in the 2016 elections, but instead with Vladimir Putin and his absurd denials. Consistent with this is constantly condemning the FBI and the rest of Washington as a “swamp,” or the media as “enemies of the people,” or the courts as “crooked.” Faith in these and other institutions is essential to freedom, and too many Republicans have been doing a much better job of assaulting, rather than strengthening, them. How long will it take to retrieve sufficient confidence in them?

And how long will it take for the new administration and its supporters to recognize how more than a century of history has repeatedly demonstrated that whenever the U.S. has envisioned itself as more self-contained than we can possibly be — hardcore “America First” and all — reality eventually has blared otherwise? Do we really believe, for example, that belligerently threatening Canada and other friends with bigger tariffs doesn’t come with costs? The same with ridiculous noises about annexing them.

Writing a piece like this uncomfortably challenges many old friends and colleagues who will not be pleased. Perhaps even more uncomfortably, it might be seen as implicitly challenging the good sense, even decency, of half the electorate, generally not a winning idea. Yet without making this more dramatic than it need be, sometimes a person reaches a stage — especially if they have made much of their lives in public and political affairs — where their silence on certain exceptionally important matters grows uncomfortably loud within, and they find themselves obliged to say tough things. This is the case with us.

Peter Bell is retired from work in both the public and private sectors. Mitch Pearlstein’s newest book is tentatively titled “Second Chance Hiring: An Economic Necessity and an Ethical Good.” It will be published later this year by Bloomsbury.