Friday, October 9, 2009

#12

Sooooo. Politics.

I joined a discussion about Barack Obama's peace prize today online with a couple of conservative friends. Of course, by the time I joined it, it wasn't about the Peace Prize, it was about the marginalization of Conservatives.

Here's friend Llyw:
"I actually want to hear what you think and participate in a discussion, but I'm tired of dealing with the petulant attitude I keep hearing from conservatives. There is a open invitation to come to the table and be heard any time you want to engage in something productive. But being childish and dismissive only encourages the current Majority to ignore you."

To which friend Ben responded:
"
the attitude comes from the constant condescension of liberals who feel they are the only ones with valid opinions, and that anyone who disagrees with them is simply misinformed or has failed to actually think about things. as a conservative in washington, I get talked down to pretty much every time politics comes up."

And my follow up. :
"Well, sometimes so-called conservatives do not have valid opinions. They have dogmas, and they conflict with the rules and obvious traits of our natural world and they expect their faith to be portrayed equally alongside fact. Dogmas like "Intelligent Design" and the constant denial of climate change (I'm ok with saying that it's not primarily caused by humans- that doesn't conflict with the obvious) are not worthy of respect. And if you're a conservative, I'm sorry- but a lot of time you are getting taken less seriously because of associations. Associations that conservative pundits and politicians aren't shedding because it forms the base of power that they have left.

Actual Conservatism, as embodied by, say, Eisenhower- is dead, politically.

The attitude of mainstream conservatives- that dogmatic belief that Liberal should be a four letter word- that causes them to dog, attack or demean more than half of America- calling us ignorant, traitors, socialists or communists or worse- is what I believe is marginalizing conservative opinion.
"

And finally, Ben's response:
"there's the problem. the pundits, personalities and screaming idiots of fox news and the rest aren't "mainstream conservatism", they're the noisy minority. they represent the average conservative about as well as Michael Moore represents your average liberal, or the Animal Liberation Front represents your average animal lover. They're noisy, they get attention, but ultimately they are an embarrassment and a detriment to that which they claim to champion."

It's his remark about representation that really brings me into focus here.
Regardless of how much Michael Moore may or may not represent most democrats, I don't think I'm alone in saying that for the first time in my lifetime I feel like I have a president that actually kind of represents me. I liked Clinton, but Barack is saying what I want to say were I to have his podium. I might not agree with all of his implementation, but the point remains:

He is trying to do what I want him to do. He is Representing me.

The thing is, is that when conservatives attack this man, when they call him a Nazi for doing what I- and in regards to health care, what most Americans- want him to do, they are in essence calling us Nazis.

I'm not a Nazi.

Let me pose it this way: If someone tells you an absurd, baldfaced lie unabashedly in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary, do you take that person less seriously?

Of course you do.

There's no escaping it. From Joe Wilson (Regarding his general speeches, not the "you lie" thing), Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rick Grassley, these people are lying. Outrageously. In the face of facts. They are implying that I want to pull the plug on Grandma. That I would destroy freedom.

And they represent a viewpoint that you, if you call yourself a conservative, claim to be a part of.

I'm not OK with that being said. Liberals disagreed with Bush, but I don't recall any of our elected officials saying he wanted to toss a baby out a window onto a bayonet, or to crowd Jews into an oven, or to euthanize your grandmother. And I sure don't remember any of our public figures implying that conservatives at large were okay with working children to death making the weapons that would kill their liberators and parents alike.

I know they're not. Most of them are good people. I'm friends with some on Facebook, and with some for the entirety of my life. Honestly, I have many, many conservative values. That's why I'm more or less a Democrat.

In short, the marginalization of "Conservatives" will continue until they take back their own party. Or better yet, abandon the trappings of that party and come into ours and we can have a discussion about actual values instead of red states and blue states.

But until then, whenever I hear a "Conservative" parrot a Fox News talking point- that person is associating themselves with the marginal. They are placing their hand on the shoulder of bald-faced liars, hypocrites and thieves. It is kind of me, as Ben put it, to think anyone who agrees with these charlatans "is simply misinformed or has failed to actually think about things." Because the alternative... I prefer not to think about it.

3 comments:

  1. take back the party is a very good way of putting it. recently, I read an article that said something like 10% voter turnout is normal for primary elections.

    This means that our choice of who we vote for is determined by the most enthusiastic (and most likely, extreme) fraction of the voters. This is true for both parties.

    The simple truth is that when one party is in power, they spend their time calling for bipartisanship, and cooperation, and the other party is busily attacking, trying to undermine what's going on in hopes of having failure to point to in the next election.

    When the power changes hands, so do the roles. Now, republicans are fear-mongering, because it works. a few years back, democrats were attacking the intelligence and transparency of Bush, because it worked. Before that, republicans were attacking Clinton's skirt-chasing ways, and so on, and so on, and so on. It's the way our government works, and partly by design. the founding gathers knew that too much efficiency in governing could be a bad thing.

    I do admire Obama's drive to accomplish something in the face of all that, and I hope he does make some changes for the better. I also hope I won't have to pay too much for it.

    This reality is why I have all but washed my hands of both parties, as 99% of our elected officials only really care about doing the bare minimum to get tax funds for their states, keeping lobbyists happy, and getting re-elected. There's no one in there for us, and that's a crime.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Boy, I disagree with most everything you said. The Democratic presidential candidates have been moderates since Dukakis. Gore may have been portrayed as a liberal radical because of his environmental stance, but in every other respect he was extremely moderate. Clinton was a pro-death penalty, pro-business democrat. Kerry was a goddamn war hero, and a moderate. And Barack Obama is a moderate. Just because he's calling for the healthcare change that most Americans have been calling for for 30 years doesn't make him a radical. It barely even makes him a leader. It makes him a moderate, representative of the people of the United States.

    Don't like that definition? Tough. Moderate is representative of the population, without extreme positions. A position that most Americans hold isn't extreme just because some nutbags so far off the table to the right say that the middle ground should be Mercantilism.

    You're right that both parties spend their time in power calling for bipartisanship. But the difference this time is that Obama is not making empty calls. Hundreds of Republican amendments have been added to bills they don't even plan to vote for. Obama has Republican cabinet members, including holdovers from the Bush administration. He invited that lying douche Rick Grassley into his own goddamn home to talk about the issues and the guy ran out the door and threw himself behind the Death Panels lie. Which is a grievous distortion and you and every American should be ashamed that we've ever elected anyone who would spread it.
    Olympia Snowe gets consulted on virtually any proposition to the healthcare bill, and she may still not vote for it. That appeasing scum Max Baucus(D) stripped the Public Option from the Senate version of the bill to appease the right and they are still probably going to vote against it.

    Democrats are absolutely trying to be bipartisan, but the stance of the Republican party is to deny that perception. Some things are not negotiable: The president has a mandate for health-care reform. That's what America wants. If America wants a handjob, Congress gets the Jergens and that is what they should be doing. But they, especially in the Senate, are unilaterally refusing to do what America wants.

    Honestly, I feel we've tried too hard for Bipartisanship. the U.S.S. Healthcare is late, and nobody else is getting on board.

    Most Americans seem to believe that some form of guarantee to healthcare is part and parcel of the American Promise: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Without a guarantee of healthcare, you are not guaranteed Life. Without a guarantee that you will not spend the rest of your life in Wage Slavery, paying for something that is not your fault, you are not guaranteed Freedom. And if we Americans don't guarantee Life and Liberty, we sure as hell aren't helping the Pursuit of Happiness.

    You go ahead and wash your hands of both parties, but for the first time in my life I actually feel nearly represented. Don't go saying that both parties are the same, or that there's no one in there for us. There's someone in there for me: That was the point of my post that you responded to. I've got Obama and Alan Grayson of Florida and Al Franken, reading the fourth amendment out loud to supporters of the Patriot Act. In public life I have Jon Stewart.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Most Americans seem to believe that some form of guarantee to healthcare is part and parcel of the American Promise: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Without a guarantee of healthcare, you are not guaranteed Life. Without a guarantee that you will not spend the rest of your life in Wage Slavery, paying for something that is not your fault, you are not guaranteed Freedom. And if we Americans don't guarantee Life and Liberty, we sure as hell aren't helping the Pursuit of Happiness."

    I happen to totally agree with this statement. I personally support a socialized healthcare system for the US. I feel that we have a moral responsibility to guarantee a certain quality of life to the citizens of this country, and health, literacy and food and a big part of that.

    I get that you connect with Obama. He seems to really be a man of the people, and moreso, he's an immensely charismatic leader. I think he's going to be good for the country overall, and I hope he does do some good for healthcare.

    But he doesn't represent me, and neither do these obstinate, belligerent right-wingers who just want to tear everything down. I despair that conservatism has gone so far tot he right, and I hate that they have tried and nearly succeeded in conflating christianity and conservatism. It's maddening, and makes me want to distance myself from them further, but at the same time, I don't believe in the welfare state, I don't think that socialism is the answer, but that it's somewhere in the middle of the two. And in the modern polarized political world, there isn't anyone speaking for me.

    ReplyDelete