Palin V. Obama: which one makes me evil, again?
September 09, 2008 By: almostgotit Category: Knoxville, Obama, Palin, Tennessee, Uncategorized, friends, partisan politics, talking politics
Tennessee is a strongly Republican state, and I *know* (I’ve seen the hard numbers) that Knoxville is too. Strangely, though, every group I hang out with seems to be 100% Democrat. And how I do love them.
But I marvel at how often my friends still manage to encounter so many Republicans, while I still manage not to. A favorite theme at recent gatherings has been the extreme presumption of “those people” (Republicans) who boorishly assume my friends are also Republicans. My friends are genuinely indignant, but I can’t tell if it’s because they are offended by people who make assumptions, or offended for being mistaken for something as vile as a Republican.
The irony here is that in the twenty-something years I’ve spent mostly in the company of left-ish people, present company included, most of them have been as exactly as presumptuous about me and my own political affiliation.
I suspect, therefore, that making assumptions about people, even discriminating against people, is not so much partisan as it is a human condition.
To be fair, I do look, walk and quack very much like a Democrat. I also understand that being included in these conversations is deeply complimentary, as my pureblooded friends clearly feel such an affinity for me that they consider me one of their own race.
But it’s also a little disturbing to think that anyone’s approval of me, for any reason, also informs them that I can’t possibly bear any of the enemy’s genetic material. Sadly though, I do.
My friends’ own distress at being oppressed by Republicans is clearly not so terrible that they can’t also enjoy the conviviality of ranting about it over lunch. Not me. I’m much happier ranting about single issues than I am about entire groups of people.
Well. Okay. Unless they’re from The Institution that Shall Not be Named. I never said it was about virtue on my part. It’s more an irrational fear of suddenly finding myself among those being crucified.
Speaking of which. I also enjoy a good rant about religion. That’s very weird, I’ve just realized. Could it be that our country actually is much more religiously tolerant than it is politically tolerant? That’s a test question. I don’t know the answer. What do you think?
September 9th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I will be SO glad when the election is over. Feels like it has been going on forever.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Maybe, just maybe, neither{. T}he Democrats or the “vile” Republicans are all really, pretty good people just trying as best they can to make the best decision they can? I do not think this elevates our discussion of the issues. In the end, most of us are pretty close about trying to do the right thing about our families, our community, and our country. There is evil, and certainly instances of vileness, but not with Clinton (Hillary), Obama, McCain, or Palin.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Thanks for commenting, Ross. I edited your comment just a bit, adding the {.} as I think that’s what you meant… that neither party is evil. I’m also assuming your “I don’t think this elevates our discussion” refers to the partisan discrimination & essentializing I mentioned, but it’s also possible you are referring to my post…
September 10th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Hey, I actually SLEEP with a Republican. Fortunately, quite an enlightened one.
But I’m pretty bummed out about the election at the moment. Sigh.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
One of my favorite quotations (from that famous, long-gone comic strip whose name I can’t remember now): “We’ve met the enemy, and he is us.”
That which we dislike most in our political enemies survives and even thrives because it is closely related to values and arrangements that we all share and think highly of.
Both radical pro-choicers and radical pro-gun folk are able to sustain their anti-communitarian views (and I have little patience with either) with considerable success because of the very strong value we all place on individual liberty.
Next time we vilify our political enemy it might be wise to step back and notice the great extent to which he is us.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
In my own experience, Democrats see the current administration as genuinely “evil.” If I just mention “Dick Cheney” as a description of the person, I am routinely “corrected” with some well known derogatory term for the person. And, it can come from someone I don’t even know.
And, the revulsion continues. Some of the members of the band “Heart” were suing the Republican Party because Palin used the “Barracuda” song as she was introduced. The Republican Party claims to have gained and paid for proper permission, but that is not relevant here. By *not* suing, these members associate themselves tacitly with “evil.” That makes sense, right?
The Republicans should campaign on a slogan of “we are not evil” and see what happens. It worked for Google. They claim to “do no evil” as part of their mission statement. As proof, I was speaking with a well educated professional this past weekend who actually said to me that because Google claims to do no evil, they could be trusted. Wow. I think it works.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I like the question you pose at the end about religious intolerance vs. political intolerance. I think that to the extent religious beliefs lead to “political behavior” (e.g., stands on abortion, gay rights, etc.), then the two types of intolerance merge somewhat. Otherwise, religious beliefs and actions are pretty private affairs generally done in the company of the like-minded and therefore don’t play out where anyone will react intolerantly. Political beliefs, on the other hand, tend to lead to actions generally done in the public square (e.g., voting) and therefore open us up to lots more cans of pandora wax, or however that saying goes. So, in conclusion, in terms of what HAPPENS, as opposed to potential, I do think we see a lot more political intolerance than religious intolerance in this country. Speaking of which, why would people vote for a ticket in which one member — the one who is a 72 year old heartbeat away from the presidency (can’t mention names here) would have to say that pretty much everything she learned about national and international affairs she learned AFTER she was nominated and in the TWO MONTHS prior to the election (which I think is a fair characterization considering the fact that the handlers haven’t let her speak with the press yet)?
September 11th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
@WG: sounds exciting
(the sleeping with part, not the bummed out part.)
@ Mr. Budd: comic strip: Pogo?
@ Yep: This is the blog that does no evil. And now I expect it to become very, very famous.
@ David: I do think it’s a wee bit more useful to ask questions like yours, e.g., “How much experience and ability does this person have?” than “Are we quite happy about that hair style?” or “Did we like that little Norsky accent/ AME preacher style that she/he gets into when speaking?”
September 12th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I was actually surprised when I moved to the US over twenty years ago, how less than passionate people were to discuss either religion or politics. Having grown up in a culture where we debated openly, feverishly about both – come to think of it, we discussed everything that way – it was surprising to me.
I am glad to see that has changed a bit, but fear the “vile” word could be used to describe both R’s and D’s on some days. Those of us who passionately pursue the balance of center are having a hard time of it, when we see benefits to both.
Maybe we are thinking that we are less politically tolerant because we are talking about it more? Imagine if we had religeous groups “running” and we would have to pick one and be stuck with the “winner”. Then we would see how far people were to go to win that battle.
The passion is admirable on both sides, but I worry about whether we will still love each other in the morning after all the nasty words. Will the hurt be too deep after we have spent so long hating on each other?
Will there be make up (you know what) after this is all over?
Marcie
September 12th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
What a delightful comment, Marcie, and a very interesting point of view.
I think it is very possible that
(a) Most Americans don’t know how to talk passionately about politics without also being nasty
– and/or —
(b) When Americans hear politics discussed with passion, we tend to interpret the passion itself as nastiness, because we are uncomfortable with passion.
You can come back and leave comments here ANY TIME, Marcie! Thanks again!
September 14th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
That question at the end is a great one. I’d hazard that the U.S. is more, maybe much more relgiously tolerant than it is politically tolerant. I’m not sure this is the best indication, but I’ll go public with my religious views long before I let my political views become obvious. And the latter is often very difficult to do at all.
In fact, when I try to voice my political views, I often find that I’ve dissembled, and sometimes for entirely different, even opposite reasons on different occasions. I’ll exaggerate my conservatism for liberals. I’ll exaggerate my liberalism for conservatives. Or versa-vice for each. I’ll nod in approval for things I later realize I disagree with completely. My political inclinations are, in fact, more fluid than my religious inclinations, which I like to think is a good thing.
In light of this discussion, it’s interesting that one of the more prominent political pundits (Rameesh Ponnuru of Time and NR), a Catholic conservative, wrote a book called “The Party of Death”, although he has stated many times that it wasn’t directed at Democrats so much as the political aspect of the Culture of Death.
I’ve often toyed with the idea that politics has become a religion in this country. Etymologically speaking, “religion” means “binding back”, or perhaps binding together, and I think this refers to political questions now even more than “religious” ones (which as David B. notes, are considered of a more private nature). The 50/50 R/D split seems to have morphed into a modern version of Manichean dualism, but even worse in that its priests and practitioners aren’t committed so much to the dualism itself (read: political process) as to one half of the divide.
But perhaps the founders intended it this way. They often found themselves faced with choices between binary opposites, with no refuge to be found in an excluded middle. Maybe this is instructive, even constructive, in that it forces decisions to be made, and encourages responsibility and accountability for those decisions.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Thank you for your very thoughtful comment, Quin! Guess I’m just late to the game as always…
September 16th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
What an interesting query. Perhaps we as Americans are so much more open about political intolerance than religious intolerance because to be religiously intolerant is to be blacklisted as narrow-minded, unfairly biased, or just plain racist. However, political intolerance is in vogue. Exhibit A: Today I watched clips from the O’Reilly Factor and Jon Stewart’s Daily Show. These guys are being paid to froth at the mouth at each other, and we’re supposed to enjoy it?
September 17th, 2008 at 10:59 am
And what an interesting comment *you* contribute to the mix, MB! thanks as always for coming by and sharing. (I gather you *didn’t* enjoy the mouth-frothing?
)
September 19th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
[...] it’s looking more and more like the job was done by the son of one of our own rare but “Vile Democrats,” too. Those [...]