Republicans Need a Shakespearean Fool

There’s been a lot of talk about bubbles in recent years.  Tiger Woods’ bubble, which cut him off from his fellow human beings, may have led to some of his self-destructive behavior.  The Vatican has been living within a bubble for a while, unable to respond in a profound way to the crisis of pedophile priests.  George Bush II operated in a bubble, protected from anyone who disagreed with him, and now thoughtful conservatives are wondering whether the right as a whole is living within a bubble (or experiencing “epistemic closure,” as conservatives Andrew Sullivan, David Frum, and Bruce Bartlett are putting it).

What is needed is a Shakepearean fool.

I’ll explain why in a moment.  But first, for a contrast, let’s look at some political leaders who have made efforts to penetrate the bubble. John F. Kennedy was careful to read a range of newspapers every morning.  Lyndon Johnson took columnist Walter Lippman seriously and was devastated with Lippman critiqued his Vietnam policy.  George Bush I had a friend periodically fly in from New York to tell him what his presidency looked like from the outside and then leave again.  (The arrangement allowed his friend to steer clear of the Washington bubble.)

Barack Obama talked about the dangers of the bubble while campaigning and reportedly wanted to hold on to his Blackberry after being elected in order to maintain contact with outsiders.  The Secret Service nixed that idea (maybe it made him susceptible to being tracked), but now he reportedly reads 10 unscreened letters a day from citizens.

Which brings us to Shakespeare’s fools.

The role of the fool is to speak truth to power when no one else has the standing or the courage.  In Twelfth Night, Olivia’s fool challenges her resolution to mourn her brother for seven years.

Clown Good madonna, why mournest thou?
Olivia Good fool, for my brother’s death.
Clown  I think his soul is in hell, madonna.
Olivia  I know his soul is in heaven, fool.
Clown The more fool, madonna, to mourn for your brother’s soul being in heaven. Take away the fool, gentlemen.

Shakespeare goes on to make clear that there will be always sycophants like Malvolio who bristle at “foolish” truthtelling.

Malvolio I marvel your ladyship takes delight in such a barren rascal: I saw him put down the other day with an ordinary fool that has no more brain than a stone. Look you now, he’s out of his guard already; unless you laugh and minister occasion to him, he is gagged. I protest, I take these wise men, that crow so at these set kind of fools, no better than the fools’ zanies.

To which Olivia sensibly replies,

Oh, you are sick of self-love, Malvolio, and taste with a distempered appetite. To be generous, guiltless and of free disposition, is to take those things for bird-bolts that you deem cannon-bullets: there is no slander in an allowed fool, though he do nothing but rail; nor no railing in a known discreet man, though he do nothing but reprove.

In King Lear, the stakes are even higher.  By giving up his kingdom to his two elder daughters, Lear sets the stage for civil war and the death of his favorite daughter.  The fool, who has been warning Lear about his folly, resorts increasingly to singing, capturing Lear’s attention:

Lear  When were you wont to be so full of songs, sirrah?   
Fool 
I have used it, nuncle, ever since thou madest thy 
daughters thy mothers; for when thou gavest them 
the rod, and put’st down thine own breeches,   

(Singing)
Then they for sudden joy did weep, 

And I for sorrow sung, 

That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among. 


Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach 
thy fool to lie. I would fain learn to lie.   
Lear 
If you lie, sirrah, we’ll have you whipped.   
Fool 
I marvel what kin thou and thy daughters are: 
they’ll have me whipped for speaking true, thou’lt 
have me whipped for lying; and sometimes I am 
whipped for holding my peace! I had rather be any 
kind o’ thing than a fool: and yet I would not be 
thee, nuncle.

Lear doesn’t only have the fool telling him the truth.  His loyal follower Kent does as well, only to be banished for his pains.  Fools can get away with it by using humor.  That doesn’t mean they are listened to, however.

I posted recently that if the Republicans are to rediscover their soul, perhaps they need first to be stripped down like Lear and banished to the wilderness.  This occurred with the Democrats in the 1980’s and they have rebuilt themselves into a party capable of governing our complex society.  The Republicans, by contrast, are banishing their Kents as traitors and at the moment appear intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.  Their lockstep obstructionism may lead to some short-term gains, say in the 2010 mid-term elections, but it is no recipe for responsible governance.

When Lear goes entirely mad, the fool disappears from the play.  If there is no possibility for rational discourse, then even comedy can’t be heard.

Let me cite an instance of where a fool managed to break through a 1980’s Democratic bubble to ultimately save the party.  The phrase “political correctness,” which has been wielded as a weapon by the right against liberals, was actually coined by leftists in an act of self-criticism.  For a while, the “pc” criticism hurt. Democrats took a pounding for politically correct orthodoxy and became a minority party.  What has emerged, however is a party capable of having a wide range of opinions within its ranks, including far more open discussions about gender and race than the Republicans can have.  This will serve Democrats well as we move into an increasingly multicultural future.

In short, listen to your fools and other truthtellers.  Listen to people who don’t agree with you.  It may not be pleasant, and sometimes ideologues that shout in unison temporarily gain the upperhand.  But the arc of history will ultimately bend in your direction.

Additional note: In the earlier Lear post mentioned above, I asked who amongst conservatives would call out Republicans for their irresponsible rhetoric at the moment.  So here’s a shout-out to conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, who showed herself worthy of her recent Pulitzer prize in yesterday’s Washington Post, where she warned  that irresponsible language increases the chances of another Timothy McVeigh.  (This on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.)  She makes the same points that Bill Clinton does in another excellent piece,but her words carry extra weight in that they come from someone who votes Republican.  Will such columns help restore sanity to the Republican Party?  Or will Parker, like David Brooks, Sullivan, Frum and Bartlett before her, be dismissed or  marginalized?