Spirits and presidential politics do not typically interact, but this election cycle is anything but typical. Democratic presidential candidate and spiritual guru Marianne Williamson made spiritual philosophy a core part of her appeal during the second round of Democratic debates by saying she will use “love” over policy plans to defeat Donald Trump.
Of course, people on social media largely mocked Williamson. That was a mistake.
After all, Williamson’s candidacy seems based in some of the same principles conservatives support — individual liberty, American exceptionalism, and military deterrence — which have universal appeal and provide a blueprint to bypassing ideological barriers. In the Trump era, conservatives should take note.
Williamson’s stance on vaccines, for example, is strikingly pro-small government.
According to an NBC report from June 19, she said “The U.S. Government doesn’t tell any citizen, in my book, what they have to do with their body or their child.” Williamson doubled-down on this position during an appearance on The View, saying we must have “a balance between public safety and the issues of individual freedom.” That sentiment neatly brings together this contentious issue in a bipartisan fashion: liberty and security are both equally important.
Vaccinations are undoubtedly effective and safe, and any claim to the contrary has been debunked. But Williamson is talking about the continued viability of individual liberty, something conservatives have championed for decades.
Apparently, these principles don’t always withstand trying times. As of early 2019, 54% of Republicans are in favor of mandatory vaccinations, and anyone who questions the ethics of such a requirement is considered a kook. In the world of Trump-era Republicans, perhaps Williamson can offer conservatives an important wake-up call: Freedom, no matter how controversial it is, must be prioritized no matter what.
Williamson’s unintentional appeal to conservative principles doesn’t stop there.
In last night’s debate, Williamson openly endorsed American exceptionalism by vowing to scold the president of New Zealand for trying to claim that their country is the best place for a child to grow up.
Now, I’m not saying Williamson is a Reagan-loving Republican patriot, or anything close to it. But she does defend one rather conservative idea: Even if America isn’t particularly exceptional at the moment, the idea of the American experiment exists independent of the country’s current political state. In that sense, America is eternally exceptional, it just needs to be perfected in real time.
Conservative voices such as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and others have consistently advocated for a “more perfect union,” suggesting that America still has work to do. It’s the same message, just without the crystals and incense.
Noninterventionist conservatives, too, can appreciate Williamson’s criticism of the U.S.’s role in Latin America. During the debate, Williamson suggested that America’s involvement drove the migrant crisis.
Whether you agree or disagree, one thing is clear: America has a dastardly history in Latin America. For example, Honduras is one of the most unstable and poorest countries in the region, and we certainly didn’t help. In 2009, the Obama administration supported an illegitimate coup of the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya and continued funneling aid to the newly installed dictator. Now, Honduras can’t even hold an election.
No, we don’t need New Age delusion in politics. But as Marianne Williamson shows, our ideological opponents often teach us something about our principles, even if they’re doing so with a heavy dose of zen.
Christian Watson is a writer at Young Voices. He can be found on twitter at @OfficialCWatson.
