Gustave Doré, “Limbo”
Wednesday
E. J. Dionne of The Washington Post, one of the most broad-minded and tolerant columnists writing today, unloads on Republican moderates in a recent post, an indication of the degree to which they have abdicated their responsibilities. John McCain, Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, Bob Corker, and a number of corresponding House Republicans may talk a good game, but their failure to stand up to Trump in any meaningful way makes them candidates for Dante’s first circle of hell.
Dionne writes,
Last week, South Carolina state legislator Katie Arrington ousted stoutly conservative Rep. Mark Sanford in a Republican primary by arguing that he was insufficiently loyal to the president. Arrington proudly declared: “We are the party of President Donald J. Trump.”
She’s right. And those Republicans who still proclaim their allegiance to moderation and civility lack the gumption to do anything about it.
Take, for instance, the refusal of Maine’s Susan Collins (R) to take a strong stand against Border Patrol separating mother and children:
First, from the experience of previous administrations, it does not act as a deterrent to use children in this fashion,” the Maine Republican said. “And second, and much more important, it is inconsistent with our American values to separate these children from their parents unless there is evidence of abuse or another very good reason.”
Collins also said a bill proposed by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-California) and others to end the practice is too broad in its approach.
“Well first of all, let me say that I know Sen. Feinstein cares deeply about these children. She is a very compassionate person. But her legislation is not the answer. It is far too broad.”
If it’s too broad, then the solution is to work hard to find legislation that can pass, not just blame both sides as though one were helpless. Collins similarly refused to use her leverage on the tax bill to fight for Maine residents who need health care. (She got a vague promise from Mitch McConnell, only to see him renege on it.) Pairing up with two or more Republican “moderates,” she could force any number of issues. Instead, time and again, she chooses to do nothing.
Immediately after passing through the gates of hell, Dante encounters “the melancholy souls of those who lived withouten infamy or praise.” He groups these in with the angels who tried to sit out the Battle of Heaven between Lucifer and the good angels. As Dante puts it, they care more for self than any cause:
Commingled are they with that caitiff choir
Of Angels, who have not rebellious been,
Nor faithful were to God, but were for self.
These figures are rejected, not only by heaven, but by hell as well. As a result, they live a “blind life” between the two realms. Their eternal regret is not to have made commitments:
And I: “O Master, what so grievous is
To these, that maketh them lament so sore?”
He answered: “I will tell thee very briefly.
These have no longer any hope of death;
And this blind life of theirs is so debased,
They envious are of every other fate.
No fame of them the world permits to be;
Misericord and Justice both disdain them.
Let us not speak of them, but look, and pass.”
Dante’s guide would rather move on to other topics than spend a moment more on such people. Dante says of them that “they never were alive,” and the gadflies and hornets that cause them to cry incessantly may stand in for their incessant regrets. Naked, they can no longer hide between Collins-like equivocation.
If these are times that try men’s (and women’s souls), a lot of our leaders are coming up short.
