I've been meaning to write something for a couple of weeks but simply haven't had the time. Stupid work and family getting in the way of blogging!
In discussion on Snabby's site on Iraq I bounced in and made these comments:
Snabby, ever wiser and level-headed than myself, gently took me to task:
This actually got the wheels spinning and I spent quite a bit of time reflecting on don's insightful response. One of the great things about the intertubes is that you occasionally come across something that makes you think. Even better when it's someone you know.
It's been observed on more than a few occasions that the language of politics has devolved in a crass, polarizing muck over the last couple of decades. Our national political discourse has been almost completely absorbed by tribalism with cliches and talking points all but replacing thoughtful debate. It makes consensus impossible. I share the belief of many that this is a Very Bad Thing. It could even be the Worstest Thing. It's slowly killing our country.
Why then do I myself engage in political shorthand in my constant references to the failures of "conservatives?"
For a couple of reasons. The first is merely practical and is directly related to the war in Iraq. Is there any question that "conservatives," regardless of personal variety, were united four years ago in their support for George W. Bush and the war in Iraq? Now that the war is a demonstrable failure to pretty much everybody we hear self-described conservatives either distance themselves from Bush by trying to claim he's not a real conservative or distance themselves from the neocon variety of conservative and attempt to hide behind their own "Eisenhower conservatism," "social conservatism," "fiscal conservatism' or whatever. I don't want to give them any breathing room. This is their war and their intellectual and moral failure as much as Bush's.
For all the differences between the different strains and brands of self-described conservatives they do have one thing in common. It's the thing that unites them above all else and causes them to put aside their differences each November as they head into the voting booth. Their intense hatred of "liberals."
Liberals. Democrats. The Left. The Great Satan. Everything that is wrong with this country (and the world) can be attributed to those vile critters. If "conservative" means anything it means "not liberal." Not Liberalism is a powerful self identity.
Unfortunately the "liberalism" that Not Liberalism is fighting has grown over the years in definition from the few anti-war protesters and flower children in the sixties to extend to pretty much all of academia, the mass media and the scientific community. Not Liberals are pretty much at war with everybody that doesn't self-identify with their group.
For discourse to be meaningful all sides will have to reach a place where they identify more with the need for consensus than disagreement. In the United States our entire political structure is built on this premise. For our system to work all parties need to identify as Americans before they identify as Whigs, Republicans, No-Nothings, Democrats or whatever else. As long as a significant portion of Americans continue to define themselves by their Not Liberalism over their citizenship this country will remain dysfunctional and will continue to fall apart at the seams. This is paradigm we need to break and this is why "conservatives" need to be held to account.
In discussion on Snabby's site on Iraq I bounced in and made these comments:
Bush is a conservative, pa've. Sorry.
I know you'd like to believe conservatism can't fail but it has and does.
Evidence is the streets of Iraq. Throughout New Orleans. And a big gaping hole in the center of New York.
Snabby, ever wiser and level-headed than myself, gently took me to task:
Dean: I probably have some of the same differences with some of Pa've's factual interpretations as you. However, Conservatism is a many-headed dragon with pre-Goldwater conservatives, pure libertarian conservatives, post-Goldwater big government/low revenue Reagan era conservatives, and of course, the neoconservatives which I believe Pa've is rightly rejecting.
Thinking conservatives like Pa've are grappling with those distinctions just like Democrats are grappling with whether the DLC corporatists are the best voice for the Democratic Party or whether a more optimistic people-oriented view needs to prevail.
Over time, I hope the debate becomes more like Hatfield vs. Kitzhaber (former Oregon governors) than Hatfield vs. McCoy.
This actually got the wheels spinning and I spent quite a bit of time reflecting on don's insightful response. One of the great things about the intertubes is that you occasionally come across something that makes you think. Even better when it's someone you know.
It's been observed on more than a few occasions that the language of politics has devolved in a crass, polarizing muck over the last couple of decades. Our national political discourse has been almost completely absorbed by tribalism with cliches and talking points all but replacing thoughtful debate. It makes consensus impossible. I share the belief of many that this is a Very Bad Thing. It could even be the Worstest Thing. It's slowly killing our country.
Why then do I myself engage in political shorthand in my constant references to the failures of "conservatives?"
For a couple of reasons. The first is merely practical and is directly related to the war in Iraq. Is there any question that "conservatives," regardless of personal variety, were united four years ago in their support for George W. Bush and the war in Iraq? Now that the war is a demonstrable failure to pretty much everybody we hear self-described conservatives either distance themselves from Bush by trying to claim he's not a real conservative or distance themselves from the neocon variety of conservative and attempt to hide behind their own "Eisenhower conservatism," "social conservatism," "fiscal conservatism' or whatever. I don't want to give them any breathing room. This is their war and their intellectual and moral failure as much as Bush's.
For all the differences between the different strains and brands of self-described conservatives they do have one thing in common. It's the thing that unites them above all else and causes them to put aside their differences each November as they head into the voting booth. Their intense hatred of "liberals."
Liberals. Democrats. The Left. The Great Satan. Everything that is wrong with this country (and the world) can be attributed to those vile critters. If "conservative" means anything it means "not liberal." Not Liberalism is a powerful self identity.
Unfortunately the "liberalism" that Not Liberalism is fighting has grown over the years in definition from the few anti-war protesters and flower children in the sixties to extend to pretty much all of academia, the mass media and the scientific community. Not Liberals are pretty much at war with everybody that doesn't self-identify with their group.
For discourse to be meaningful all sides will have to reach a place where they identify more with the need for consensus than disagreement. In the United States our entire political structure is built on this premise. For our system to work all parties need to identify as Americans before they identify as Whigs, Republicans, No-Nothings, Democrats or whatever else. As long as a significant portion of Americans continue to define themselves by their Not Liberalism over their citizenship this country will remain dysfunctional and will continue to fall apart at the seams. This is paradigm we need to break and this is why "conservatives" need to be held to account.
Posts
5 comments:
Think time...
Yep. No slack, no excuses, if you aren't going to let the buck stop there - I'll come over there and shove it down your fucking throat. Or at least some one should. The media certainly isn't.
How many times can the top people of the Republican party say "It wasn't me, it was my darn chief of staff/bad apples/generals/somebody else." after crowing about being the party of personal responsibility for so freaking long before the supporters of the party are openly disgusted with what THEY have caused. Seriously - you voted for these dipshits. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE.
The proper response is to apologize.
I thought I heard the Internet tubes softly calling my name...
I appreciate you thinking about stuff that I wrote. It means the world to me that I have any small impact on this space-time continuum.
I think a person needs to put a line between our leaders/pundit cheerleaders and the rank & file voter out there for a couple of reasons.
My personal opinion is that Bush & Cheney belong in prison for their actions in Iraq and in response to Katrina. They deserve removal from office for their lack of action in defining and responding SUCCESSFULLY to terror attacks a la 9/11.
The pundits and media laid the path of propaganda for the government to successfully lie and cheat their way to today. It isn't the first time and it won't be the last.
That is one set of people. The second set are the folks with "W" bumper stickers on their cars or those others who simply voted for him both in 2000 and 2004 (and let’s say 2006 to a lesser degree).
Should they apologize for voting for these criminals? Probably, but we are talking about humans here. Most people don’t apologize; they make excuses. If you want them to swing your direction, you must open the door to those excuses.
The BEST excuse is that they were lied to. Some people weren’t as savvy as we were and couldn’t see past the propaganda. I say we give them that excuse. As someone who spoke out during the most heated part of all this, I can tell you that it isn’t an easy thing to do. People lost their livelihoods over a little free speech between 2001 and 2003. Believing the government was much easier than bucking it.
Most people nowadays know that racism is wrong, destroying the environment is wrong, and accepting toxins in our food is wrong. These are unmistakably liberal positions. Even Glenn Beck is scared to actually say “Sand Nigger” because he knows 90% of America would not accept it. Instead, he must use cowardly metaphors and set up endless “straw man fallacy” arguments to dance around the fact that he is bigoted towards Muslims and totally fails to understand what the hell is going on out there.
The people working hardest to undermine American unity on these important issues are the multi-national corporatists. They use red herrings like Gay Marriage, Gun Control, and Abortion to keep us from uniting on things like clean air, decent and fair wages for everyone in the world, and allowing religions to peacefully coexist. Their easiest conduit for splitting us is using these wingnut right-wing religious freaks to keep us divided. However, they can only reach 25% of America that way.
It is up to us to win over the other 75%. Saying, “Fuck You. You were wrong. Apologize now to make me happy.” will only drive them over to the radical side. I would rather harbor deep disagreements with folks I disagree with, but divest them from the poisonous rhetoric that is weakening the people in favor of the powerful. Nearly all of America is cued in on the fact that our media won't just give us the news and that oil is an addiction that is literally killing American servicepeople. It is a complicated fight, but a winnable one if we focus on the commonalities and weather the monotonous talking-point arguments repeated by those on the right who don't know any better.
Your mileage may vary.
Hmmm, overall I liken this debate to the old "working moms" vs "stay-at-home moms" slingfest.
On TV and often in print, you'd think these two "groups" are at each others throats, but in reality, most mothers are in between.
All the "moms" I know have tried all the combinations of:
working full time
working part time
stay at home full time
work, then stay at home until the kids can go to school, then go back to work again.
And nobody thinks anybody is getting a "better deal", there are pros & cons to all the permutations of family life, and our co-madres know it.
Don,
I'm going to reply- haven't had more than five minutes at the computer this week. I did want you to know I've read and am thinking about your response.
Dean
Post a Comment