in which unpopular opinions are voiced and the popular vote is recounted

[sab]

Picking up where I left off in the last post. SEP, thanks for bringing up some interesting points (I took the PEW quiz and am still a Liberal), but mostly I want to get some stuff square, between me and Teri, between me and any other Republican friends who might be frequenting this LJ. Along with a general amnesty to those of any political stripe to go ahead and defriend me and I will absolutely understand -- my brand of vitriol isn't for everybody and that's cool too.

So first, the observations Teri made about generalizing based on political affiliation, and the need to deal with each other as individuals first. I think we can all get together and agree on this one, the bit where we respect one another as individuals and appreciate that each person has her own set of agendas and a giant American forum in which to voice them, at least as long as the Bill of Rights holds out, yes? Me, I sat down and had that conversation in fourth grade. Freedom of expression. Respect individual opinions. And henceforth shall the slashers and the hetshippers continue to live in peace and harmony. (I mock, just a little. I hate having my honest expression met with -- irrelevant! -- cliche, don't you?)

Which is to say, the crux of my argument is as follows: if you voted for Bush, I will, and can, rightly group you with a set of individuals who ALSO VOTED FOR BUSH, thus generalizing you as "Bush voters," who I will, and can, oppose, SIMPLY because your candidate -- for whom you CHOSE to vote -- stands in opposition to the values I hold dear.

If you feel like I'm generalizing you or pickin' on you for that, dammit, man, I don't know what to say. If you don't want to be grouped with Bush voters, VOTE for someone ELSE. If you're embarassed by, or even not proud of, your political affiliations, maybe you need to rethink 'em?

Being a Republican, or a Democrat, or a non-affiliated progressive, or anarchist, or neo-con, is NOT a protected class. It's not like being Filipino or blind or a midget. Because of that, I OWN my party affiliation, I am PROUD to be a Democrat, despite not being in lockstep with all the leaders of my party, despite maintaining my own individual beliefs, values, and rights. I still vote with my party, campaign for my party, and fight for the values that are crucial to my party. I'm not embarassed to be grouped or generalized with Democrats, because of that thing we all learned in fourth grade, see above, where we're ALREADY respecting one another as individuals, but still have the need to find -- as SEP pointed out -- a group of like-minded individuals with whom to ORGANIZE and FIGHT. Which is of course a partisan difference in itself -- while the Left is (I generalize) fighting for the right to bargain collectively and go on strike, the Right is (I generalize) fighting for the rights of individuals to invest their own social security, keep their own estate taxes, and own their own guns. Just an interesting coinc-idink, don't you think?

If you don't agree with the platforms of your party -- if you do, as you said, Teri, support MY values and respect MY ideals, for reals, you'd vote for MY candidates. If there is one thing we can generalize according to political belief, I would think, I would hope, it would be political affiliation. Not all blind Filipino midgets vote alike. But, dammit, all Bush-voters VOTED FOR BUSH. And despite everything else, you have put him in office, put him BETWEEN me and what I'm fighting for, and therefore, you are, if not an enemy, an OBSTACLE.

Now -- back to fourth grade again -- this doesn't mean I won't break bread with you, or engage you in debate, or squee over TV, or invite you to parties, or respect you any less as an INDIVIDUAL, because my mama and my friends taught me right. However, asking me not to judge you -- Bush-voters -- on the basis of your political affiliation is...not bloody likely.

Now. If we didn't have a two-party system -- rather, if we lived in a utopia where everyone's agendas and opinions were given equal airtime and weight, if we could pick and choose issues from both sides of the aisle and cobble together fifty third-party candidates, there might be more room for this kind of individualized thinking. Where, sure, you voted for Bush, but you really are pro-gay marriage, really! might actually mean something. In the current political climate -- especially if you're not DOING anything about it (canvassed any precincts lately? worked any phone banks?) -- it's next to meaningless.

In February I'm phone banking for Vote For Equality, legalizing gay marriage in California. Wanna come, Teri?

I'm also doing virtual fundraising for Barbara Boxer, a letter writing campaign for the American Humanist Association, and am on the list to help with anti-NSA wiretapping action for the ACLU (there are rallies et al currently happening -- or soon -- in DC, so if you're in DC, you should go!) -- will keep you updated.

Point being. I'm really serious about my political beliefs, because, you know, I LIVE here. I am a vicious patriot, I love this country so much I want to cry sometimes, and I want to fight, every day, to reclaim the civil rights that Jefferson et al promised me, as well as to help this country move into the new millennium and embrace our future (and our role in the global community) responsibly, because we're well beyond superstition and well into future science and the world only spins forward, and is getting smaller every day.

If you oppose these issues, if you think my phone should be tapped, if you think I shouldn't be able to get an abortion or get married, if you think it's okay that we're the only G8 nation not to join the fight against global warming, if you think it's appropriate to teach creationism alongside -- or instead of! -- evolution, if you don't support sex education in schools, if you want to blur church and state, if you want to strip social security in favor of private accounts or strip public schools in favor of vouchers, if you don't care about being a responsible player in the global community, rather than a fundamentalist anomaly -- you do NOT have the same values as me! That's not judgemental, that's FACT. And I respect you profoundly for your commitment to your beliefs, even if they're different from mine.

But if you DO share my values, if you agree with me on most or all of the above, and you STILL voted for Bush -- well, that's just crazy.

Comments

This is what they call a "hell yeah."

[wearemany.livejournal.com]

Only adding this small point, because I don't at all think it's a coincidence. Those of us without individual rights, or who commit ourselves to working for everyone's individual rights, have no choice but to demand access to those rights in solidarity with each other, to fight for them together. People in power -- those in REAL power, those who control not just the government (which they do) but also the economy (which they have for a long time) -- only benefit even more from us buying into the idea that we're all already equals. We may all be human. We are not all equal. We can all disagree on how to make those two statements meet in the middle, but I can't be friends with people who can't agree on that little.

[tangleofthorns.livejournal.com]

Respecting someone as a person and respecting someone's politics are different, and I sometimes think that that's one of the things the Democratic party forgets. My dad's a total Republican, and he's well-intentioned, genuinely, but he's WRONG. And I can respect him and love him and still tell him that he's FREAKING WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING. The thing is, no matter how much you want to, it's hard to behave respectfully toward a person when their politics don't respect you as a person. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

But, yeah, to crib a little from Aaron Sorkin (and Leo McGarry, naturally), when you're standing so close to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and George Bush and Rick Santorum, it's kinda hard not to paint you with the same brush.

[samdonne.livejournal.com]

Yes. Pretty much.

[se-parsons.livejournal.com]

When I'm done writing it, let me run the 1 hour Constitution play I'm writing for qowf to perform in the State of Ohio to teach kids about the formation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, by you. I have this whole Founding Fathers spiel I desperately need to get off my chest.

Also, if you were going to write one, what would you write?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_abulafia/]

Yes. Thank you.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

Which is to say, the crux of my argument is as follows: if you voted for Bush, I will, and can, rightly group you with a set of individuals who ALSO VOTED FOR BUSH, thus generalizing you as "Bush voters," who I will, and can, oppose, SIMPLY because your candidate -- for whom you CHOSE to vote -- stands in opposition to the values I hold dear.

If you feel like I'm generalizing you or pickin' on you for that, dammit, man, I don't know what to say

there's nothing wrong with that grouping. i voted for the guy. i voted for the guy, however, for a single issue. it just happens to be one you oppose. and i understand why. i don't agree, but we don't have to. your reasons are sound and work for you.

HOWEVER....and this is important and separate from the rest of what will follow...none of yesterday was about that. it was specifically about your comments on Stephen Harper and lumping all conservatives everywhere as somehow part of the "Bush Agenda", for lack of a better phrase. that's it. Canadians have their own country and their own issues, their own agendas and their own free will. they voted the guy into a minority government. i'm guessing not necessarily for reasons of a political shift, but in direct response to Martin's corrupt government. it happens. blaming Bush for it is an insult to Canadians and their ability to make their own choices about their own country's future.

as to the rest....

i'm a political conservative, not a social one, not a religious one. but my definition of conservative is from when i was first introduced to politics, which was 1979. i come from a long line of that kind of Republican. it's simply small government, fiscal conservative. that's it. it's not mixing religious belief into government agenda. it's not stripping away the rights of the individual to make government's job easier. but it's also not nanny state government.

i'm sorry if that's too much of a contradiction for you. it makes perfect sense to me.

If you oppose these issues....

i am pretty sure that i've said very publicly, a lot, that i am socially liberal. i think government has no business in people's private lives. i am pro choice, i don't give a flying fuck who marries who, i don't agree, even down to the local level, with how much access government and law enforcement is given into people's privacy. i think they should have to find another way to do it that's legal and maintains their rights while preserving social safety. i don't know where that line is but that's what i believe. and i have a bird's eye view into that issue that you don't.

i don't believe that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive theories, but i also don't believe that creationism has any business being taught anywhere outside of a private, religious school. church and state belong separated and that extends to education. but, to complicate matters, i also believe that it's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

as to global politics, i see the world field differently than you, but i believe that we want the same things on a fundamental level.

i think Barbara Boxer's a wingnut but i respect that you don't and i have profound respect for your being out there working for what you believe.


But if you DO share my values, if you agree with me on most or all of the above, and you STILL voted for Bush -- well, that's just crazy.

i'm not sure what the count is on agree/share, but it's rather high, so i guess that just makes me crazy because, to me, national security trumped domestic agenda at the polls and it will every time. but then, my perspective is that, as far as domestic agenda goes, that's what Congress is for.

[corinna-5.livejournal.com]

If you believe that the Congress should be passing pro-gay-rights, pro-privacy, pro-choice legislation, what are you going to do about it? Because right now you have a Congress that's demonstrably corrupt and in thrall to the fundamentalist Christian right, thanks to people who voted Republican.

I'll set aside the argument that a military-security state that tramples over the constitution isn't what I call a safe place to live, because I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on that one...

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

i don't believe the federal government should be involved in the private lives of its citizens at all, which is the key difference. and, really, i feel no need to defend myself to you.

[rfkfortheusa.livejournal.com]

you should read the green/gerber campaigning tactics stuff out of yale in, hmm, the late 90s? if you can access jstor or the like somehow.

nothing at all to do with partisanship or anything in this post except the words like phone and banking, but shiny experiments dealing with the relative usefulness of canvassing/phone banking/direct mail/etc. i've decided that all democrats need to read these things (and a refresher on the great society), and then we can be back on track. which is also to say that i'm tired of my ideology getting its as kicked.

brought to you by the campaign for a resurrected democratic party.

[paradise-city.livejournal.com]

God, I hate talking politics on LJ, I really do. And yet I find myself doing it anyway, I suppose, in part, as a sort of personal activism. I can't just let it lie when I feel as though there is unfair treatment on either side of the issue.

...this doesn't mean I won't break bread with you, or engage you in debate, or squee over TV, or invite you to parties, or respect you any less as an INDIVIDUAL, because my mama and my friends taught me right. However, asking me not to judge you -- Bush-voters -- on the basis of your political affiliation is...not bloody likely.

That line of reasoning I simply don't understand. How can you respect someone on an individual basis and then toss aside that very same respect based on a group designation? Politics is not black and white; most Bush supporters or non Bush supporters don't agree with their party's ideology a full hundred percent. Putting the group before the individual when it comes to making personal assessments has been, essentially, the cornerstone of most forms of institutional oppression.

However, politics seems like one of the few realms where it is allowed and sometimes encouraged to do so. And that is, of course, well within anyone's rights: assess others any way you see fit. We all do it; it's part of schema formation and the basis of social interaction and is not inherently negative. But I do not understand why one's group affiliation should take precedence in that assessment, often in a negative direction to the exclusion of any prior positive individual assessments.

I suppose I'm sensitive to this method of assessment because I am, seemingly unfortunately, conservative in some of my opinions. I don't think that makes me an inherently bad, irresponsible, or oppressive person; at least, people don't seem to think so until my group affiliation is revealed. And at that point, despite the fact that people know me far beyond a simple group designation, that group affiliation takes precedence.

I'm not trying to start an argument or, even, a discussion. You have your views and I have mine and, as I said, we're each entitled to them without question or challenge. As things currently stand in the American political climate, it is increasingly difficult for people to respectfully allow for differing opinions and while I hope one day that will change, that day isn't exactly looming on the horizon.

I would have preferred to let the political posts slide without comment from me, because even though we don't know each other, I do enjoy reading you. However, given your commitment to and passion for your political activism, it seemed somehow disrespectful to you not to speak up and appear to agree by silence.

All that being said, I admire your dedication to your beliefs, even if I don't agree with the way in which you enact them.