In Mark Twain’s 1884 classic novel, “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” the book’s 13-year-old protagonist, Huck, wrestles with the dilemma to either help his slave friend Jim escape or betray his friend’s trust and abandon his own moral code.
Huck ponders the underlying issues for several days and lays awake at nights, struggling to resolve his conflict of conscience. On the one hand, the Sunday sermons Huck has heard, have stressed unambiguously that stealing property is a sin because slaves are considered “property.” The resulting consequence of sin, he also learns, is spending eternity in hell.
But on the other hand, Huck sees Jim as both a friend and as a human being (not property) and whose captivity seems unjustifiable and morally corrupt.
Huck’s frustration in trying to resolve this inner conflict is summarized by the following observation: “If I had a yaller dog that didn’t know no more than a person’s conscience does I would poison him. It takes up more room than all the rest of a person’s insides, and yet ain’t no good, nohow.”
The moral climax of the story is reached when Huck concludes that he will, in fact, help Jim escape. “All right then, I’ll go to hell … It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming.”
In short, Huck’s decision to go to “hell” was preferable to going to everyone else’s heaven. Huck lets his own moral compass determine his course, not the hypocritical and cruel rules of society’s institutions. In this seminal moment, Huck’s moral character is laid bare.
In the weeks and months ahead, GOP members of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate will face a similar conflict of conscience as they consider the impeachment of the president. Soon, witnesses, documents and other facts will be placed in evidence. If any of the aforementioned bear a resemblance to the facts already in the public sphere, it seems hard to imagine how any members of Congress can dismiss, excuse or explain them away.
Yet, we know many, if not most members of the GOP, will try.
Much as Huck wanted to solve his inner conflict, GOP politicians have already poisoned their own “yaller dog” consciences. We will see again, as we’ve seen in incident after immoral and unconstitutional incident during the past three years, that GOP members will be unwilling or unable to summon the courage and moral fortitude to do what the fictitious 13-year-old Huckleberry Finn did when deciding to help his friend escape captivity: Do the right thing.
The GOP’s fealty to their king leader will be on full display for all to see when the hearings go public soon. Their antics will no doubt include healthy doses of feigned anger, righteous indignation and sophomoric obstruction tactics in faithful, obedient servitude to their “Dear Leader.” Their central, guiding goal will remain: Please the king at all costs—including, if necessary, the corruption of our Constitution and the undermining of the foundational tenants of our republic.
It appears the vast majority of the GOP Congressional delegation will have no conflict of conscience when it comes to choosing party and power over country. While they lack the courage to make the type of morally laudable decision Huck Finn made, it’s clear they agree with him on one thing: A conscience “ain’t no good, nohow.”
Ron Nichols is a freelance writer and communications consultant in Greensboro, N.C.
From The Progressive Populist, December 1, 2019
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us