Enemy of the Good

A couple of weeks ago, I started a column called Enemy of the Good.  My lucky first recipient of the award was James Inhofe, United States Senator from Oklahoma.  But what is an Enemy of the Good?  Two definitions are needed.  Here we go:

The good is aspiring to the general welfare of all Americans.  It is taxpayer supported services such as education for all, healthcare for all, clean environment, affordable housing, and civil rights.  It is full and frank dialogue about what\’s happening in our cities, states, and country, in politics, in business, in education, in religion, in social services.  It is recognizing our patchwork of interconnectedness; it is acknowledging that policies based on exclusion hurt us morally and economically, while policies reflecting the needs and desires of as many people as possible benefit each and every one of us.  It is understanding of the complexities of society, and not giving into to simplicity which make a mockery out of intelligence.  It is refusing to submit to labelling, and fighting ignorance.  It recognizes that truth is layered and that each fold contains value to those who possess it, and that motivation, i.e., how people vote, pray, dress, marry, think, reproduce, fight, defend, and live, is, if anything, hidden in even more robes than truth.  The good is willing to dig and able to be patient; the good sees all sides and assigns them value.  The good holds health over profits, and communities over corporations.  It is neither liberal nor conservative, but fair.

An enemy of the good is a person in a position of power who uses that power to further the interests of those who keep him in power; all others benefit collaterally. The enemy of the good is quick to criticize,  but slow to innovate. The enemy of the good trades in cheap rhetoric instead of honest discussion.  The enemy of the good dislikes change because it threatens his power.  (Enemies of the good are not exclusively male.). The enemy of the good takes advantage of ignorance to gain support and power; he does not correct dangerous assumptions or ideas which he knows to be false; he in fact often protects or repeats them.  The enemy of the good sees only that which supports his position, and discards that which complicates it.  He avoids complexity, and is disdainful of inclusivity.  His tagline often includes a version of making government smaller, but his actions rarely promote actions which are consistent with efficiency.  The enemy of the good believes he has pulled himself up by his bootstraps, but he has not.

What else?  I welcome your suggestions.