First-Rate Minds
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.
F. Scott Fitzgerald
This quote is often cited by those seeking to demonstrate a first-rate mind, although more often than not, they are guilty of category error in that what they compare are not opposed ideas so much as seemingly opposed but really quite different ideas. Because the ideas are in fact, quite different, holding them in the same mind is somewhat less of a trick than it seems.
An example may illustrate the point. The nationalist insurrection at our nation’s Capitol on January 6th is now and again put forward by its apologists as quite minor when compared to the left-wing chaos and destruction wrought in the streets of several major U.S. cities over the summer. This is the argument of the third-rate mind. The second-rate mind takes this argument at face value and determines that both are unsatisfactory, and that a civil society should countenance neither. This moral equivalence then provides the thinker with the comfort of believing they are in possession of a first-rate mind, as they are able to view these “opposed” ideas with detached wisdom. They are fooling themselves.
The first-rate mind recognizes that these are not “opposed” ideas. The first-rate mind places them in proper categories for analysis and reaches independent conclusions on each. When confronted with a summer-long series of violent attacks on private property, public spaces, and public employees, the first-rate mind concludes that such events are antithetical to civil society, that force may in fact be necessary to contain them, and that the root causes of such violence are not simply the legitimate and real injustices cited, but also the performative rage of well-off young people trained to believe that they should be ashamed of their privilege. This does not even consider the chaos agents just out to have a good time smashing windows and riding the rage wave.
The possessor of a first-rate mind looks at the events of January the 6th and recognizes that they bear little resemblance to the summer’s angst, and that there is in fact, no real “opposition” to be balanced within the mind. These are very different things. They are not opposed. They are distinct.
What we saw several weeks ago was an insurrection, a traitorous attack at the heart of the constitutional republic, the planning and sophistication of which we will only become familiar with over time. It was organized by the President at the time and his support staff, it was summoned by that President, and it was given its orders by that President. Participants sought to (at best) disrupt a Constitutionally-mandated process, and at worst to kidnap and kill the Vice President and Members of Congress. Murder did occur. These acts were in the service of lies told by the President and many others in power, lies that were developed specifically to incite this unconstitutional outcome.
The summer riots and the winter insurrection are unrelated (but for the use of violence), but more importantly, they are unrelatable. The act of attempting to violently overthrow the government deserves to be considered in its own category of malevolence, and its perpetrators and apologists deserve to be treated as more than just anarchists or criminals.
Voting Reform
The November 2020 election was legitimate, fair, and secure. This is widely known, if for no other reason than the previous administration’s point man on the subject asserted as much. This does not mean that the election was perfect or that our system(s) is beyond reform. That a voter presenting him or herself at the polling place should be required to produce some form of commonly accepted identification should be unobjectionable (though of course, it remains to to some). That any future system of voting conducted over the internet should have at least as high a bar of voter identification should also be clear. Same goes for voting by mail, which should require at some point in the request process a means of verifying identity.
Additionally, while there remains great value in state-run voting (imagine if this past election had been federally run), national standards should apply to the treatment of mailed/absentee votes, to include a requirement for such votes to be counted when received, and a realistic cut-off date for the receipt of such votes to be counted after the election.
Again—that there are necessary and proper reforms to be made to our system is not in any way an idea opposed to the acceptance of the legitimacy of the November election. These are very different ideas. Holding them in one mind does not identify that mind as first-rate. Recognizing that they are very different, helps do so.