Yet More Thoughts

[kelly_chambliss]

I should stop this, I know -- this business of thinking.  Especially since the things I've been thinking today are making me even more depressed.  In my first flush of anger and disappointment and terror at the idea of four more years (and its many decades of aftermath), I have been indulging in the pleasures of outraged self-righteousness.  My complaints won't do any good in the long run, but in the short run, it was rather cathartic to sit here and have a good fit of judgmental carping and blame-laying.

But now I've gotten some things out of my system, I have to face the ideas that are left.   And they are the ones that really depress me, because it all seems a lot more hopeless now than it did while I was ranting.  At least while I was venting, I could cast all the Bush voters as either evil or stupid and hold myself up against them as smarter and more tolerant, etc.  So, yeah, the US might be going to hell, but at least I could feel sort of good about myself.  But the truth is, nothing is that simple. 

Of course it would be comforting and easier to think that everyone who disagrees with me has gone over to the Dark Side, but life is a lot messier than that.  Most of the people who voted for Bush are decent and honest, even kind.  They want a good world, and they genuinely see me and people like me (liberals, I mean, not just lesbians) as threats to everything they believe in.  They are as scared of me and my ilk as we are of them.  We see them as narrow and sanctimonious and intolerant--and dangerous; they see us as godless and profligate and immoral--and dangerous.  For most people, there really isn't much middle ground.

So where do we go from here?  That's what worries me most.  Not Bush, bad as he is.  He's a simplistic demagogue and seriously un-bright, and I'm confident the eventual harsh judgments of history will take care of him.  But how are we going to cross this cultural divide? The Republicans and the religious right aren't going to convince me; I'm not going to convince them.  I'm not going to stop fighting and voting for the things I believe are right; neither are they.  I'm not going to stop thinking that they are just plain wrong.  And they will continue to think the same of me.

So now what?  Part of me would like to think that I'm just over-reacting, that I'm indulging in melodrama again, this time by creating a too-strict binary of us versus them.  Maybe this whole "cultural divide" thing is just another media-fueled bit of extremist hype.  I know a lot of religious and conservative people (like, um, half my family), and they are well-meaning and thoughtful.  They aren't knee-jerk Moral Majority zealots.  When we talk, we find a lot of middle ground, a lot of mutual understanding.

But then again. . .I also know a lot of people (on both sides) who are infuriatingly bigoted and rigid and not interested in even hearing a different point of view.  Or are so geared to their own comfort and financial self-interest that they don't give a damn about anything else (a particular businessman in-law of mine comes to mind.)  And the "divide" thing can't be a total media fabrication:  just look at the almost-even vote split; just look at that red-and-blue US map. 

In the end, it doesn't matter that most people on both sides are well-meaning.  A hell of a lot of harm can be (and has been) wrought by the well-meaning.  I'm no relativist; I'm not trying to suggest that the cultural divide is just a matter of different, equally-acceptable opinions.  It's true that everyone is entitled to hir opinion, but it's not true that every opinion is therefore valid.  I think the liberal cultural view is more objectively supportable than the conservative one.  I believe that many of the policies and goals of the Right are dangerously misguided (to put it mildly.)  But that brings me right back to where I started:  the Right thinks the same of Lefties like me.  This problem is far bigger than just a single election. 

That's why I'm so dissatisfied with a lot of the post-mortem analysis I'm reading on-line and in magazines.  Most of it has focused on "how can the Dems get elected in 2008?"  That's a good question, but it's not the most important one right now.  (And as far as answering that question goes, the solution is not, as some commentators have appallingly suggested, for the Democrats to become more religious and more "mainstream."  I want an America that has room for the non-religious and the non-mainstream.  Anyway,  it's hard to imagine how the Dems could move much father right than they already are, unless they just want to throw in the towel and call themselves Republicans.  I mean, if the Kerry campaign represents a "too-far-left" viewpoint [as I read in one column today] then we might as well start calling Reagan a leftist.  Maybe it's true that if the Dems did move farther right, they could get elected.  But what would be the point of electing a Democratic president who is indistinguishable from a Republican one?  Kerry was practically already there as it was.)

The most important question, to me, is to find out how we can start genuinely communicating with each other again.  I can hardly believe I'm writing this -- me, a loud-mouthed, totally opinionated cynic, calling for "communication."  If this were a movie, here's where the camera would switch to a soft-focus shot of multi-colored children playing in a meadow, with disembodied voices humming "Kumbaya" in the background. 

But what else can we do except try to talk, to find workable meeting points that don't compromise basic American principles?  Should we keep demonizing each other?  Get  the Northeast and West Coast to secede from the Union?  (Hey. . .there's an idea.)  What should we do?  Tell me.  I want answers, people!

Comments

[seemag.livejournal.com]

Well, I think it's a question of respect and the willingness to listen and learn, even if you know you will never agree with the opposing point of view. If a person is unwilling to respect/listen/learn, it doesn't matter what side they're on, the problem remains.

I think it comes down to the ability to separate religion from public life. I'm a religious person, and certain actions and beliefs are command by my religion, for instance, but I recognize that this stops at me (and those who share my faith) and doesn't spill over to Kelly. I believe it's possible to be a private person of faith. I think the problem comes though, when that private expression spills into and threatens to govern aspects of public life.

Unfortunately, religion has been an overriding issue for a couple thousand years now, and it has always governed the way people act and think, and creates 'morals' that aren't necessarily, well, in accordance with their religious beliefs, but because it's based in faith, it's justifiable and even okay -- even if contradictory. The question is how far you're willing to impose your beliefs on others. Until you are able to sit back and let mature, consenting, law-abiding adults do as they wish and realize it doesn't affect you, your morality, your life, your religion, your marriage -- that divide is always going to remain.

I hope that all made sense ::worries::.

Also, have you read What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805073396/qid=1099717581/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-3883153-9146540?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Frank Thomas. I think you'd enjoy it -- it actually addresses this issue of how the right has gained ascendency so quickly and thoroughly. It's a wee bit of an academic read, sometimes plodding and the pacing is iffy, but it makes some very good points.

[kellychambliss.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the Thomas book. It sounds interesting, but I don't think I can face it just yet . For the moment, I just want to bury myself in fanfic or escapist novels.

You're right about the religion/public life divide. It's so hard for people to separate those two, since to genuinely religious people, there's no part of life that faith doesn't touch. Nor do one have to be religious to take that easy slide from holding one's own views to imposing them.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

Amen, amen, and amen.

I've been waiting and watching to see when the rhetoric would finally bubble down to something sensible. Your's is almost the first one I've seen.

Yes, communication is the key. And the key to communication is to stop the name-calling and the better-than-thou commentary that has passed for discussion the last few days everywhere one looks. As you said, most of the people on the opposite side of the fence are decent... and those are the ones who have a better chance of becoming allies on particular issues... or at the very least, not stumbling blocks.

Both sides have to stop pushing the defensive buttons and dialogue. We'll see if a) the media, b) the party powers, and c) the extreme activists allow that kind of thing to occur. My guess is, no. And that's a crying shame.

[kellychambliss.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my guess is "no," too. And it *is* a shame. But name-calling is easier (and more satisfying) than dealing with the tough questions.

[nandamai]

Anyway,  it's hard to imagine how the Dems could move much father right than they already are, unless they just want to throw in the towel and call themselves Republicans.  I mean, if the Kerry campaign represents a "too-far-left" viewpoint [as I read in one column today] then we might as well start calling Reagan a leftist.

There was an interesting note in Michael Moore's update yesterday. Number 17 on his list of "17 Reasons Not To Slit Your Wrists" was that even though Kerry was portrayed (and pretty successfully) by the Bush camp as the #1 liberal in the Senate, 55 million people still voted for him -- and that's more than ever voted for Reagan, Bush pere, or Clinton. Now, surely some of those votes were a lesser-of-two evils sort of thing, and some more anti-Bush than pro-Kerry. And of course Moore can't always be trusted (except to be entertaining). But I just found a lot to think about in that. Maybe the answer really is that the Democrats should get back to their true liberal, social contract roots, rather than keep sliding to the center (and past it). Maybe instead of looking for a centrist candidate for 2008, we should be begging Dean and/or Cucinich and/or somebody even further to the left to run again.

Or maybe not. I dunno. But it cheered me up a little bit for one day.

And the problem with that would still be the same, I suppose -- Democratic voters are all for lefties during the early campaign, but when it comes to primary day they start worrying about electability and fall back on the moderate.

[kellychambliss.livejournal.com]

////Maybe the answer really is that the Democrats should get back to their true liberal, social contract roots, rather than keep sliding to the center (and past it). Maybe instead of looking for a centrist candidate for 2008, we should be begging Dean and/or Cucinich and/or somebody even further to the left to run again.////

This is what I'd prefer. Hell, nothing else seems to work. Kucinich got my vote in the primary.

[alex-voy.livejournal.com]

Anyway, it's hard to imagine how the Dems could move much father right than they already are, unless they just want to throw in the towel and call themselves Republicans. I mean, if the Kerry campaign represents a "too-far-left" viewpoint [as I read in one column today] then we might as well start calling Reagan a leftist.

We’re ahead of you here. Our left ditched it’s socialist principles and moved right to get elected, whereupon our right took fright and moved to the left until the parties are almost indistinguishable, and consequently the opposition is too weak to be an effective check. It may seem a good thing in theory for all parties to have a similar agenda, but it has left large sections of society feeling powerless and disenfranchised on both sides. Few young people have any interest in politics in this country, and voting turnouts are abysmal. This political limbo has resulted in the weird alliance between ultra-right Bush and trendy-left Blair, which seems to be based on religion. It’s a personal thing between the two men, and it would be hard to find another UK politician (of any party) who would join so enthusiastically in Bush’s madcap schemes for world domination. The US appears to be much more rightwing in general than the UK – I have problems with all three of our main parties, but I’m basically fairly conservative. If I were a US citizen, though, in this election at least (I haven’t followed previous ones closely enough to make an informed judgement), my instincts would almost certainly be Democrat, and not just because of Bush’s track record. From experience here, I can say the most important thing over the next four years is to have an effective opposition in Congress – presumably difficult with a Republican majority – and a strong leader of integrity to show up Bush’s inadequacies. Someone said to me last week that people will only vote against a politician when he begins to hit their pockets and their lifestyle. I hope such cynicism is wrong, and anyway it may be just a British thing – I can’t imagine any government winning an election here on religious issues.

[kellychambliss.livejournal.com]

"Madcap" is a good work for Bush and his schemes. Maybe too kind to him, though.

////Someone said to me last week that people will only vote against a politician when he begins to hit their pockets and their lifestyle. I hope such cynicism is wrong, and anyway it may be just a British thing////

No, I don't think it is just a British thing. Or even particularly cynical. It's just the way human nature works. In the US in 1992, Clinton's election slogan for his campaign workers was, "It's the economy, stupid." And it was. Over the years, the state of the economy has turned out to be the single most reliable predictor of US presidential election outcomes featuring an incumbent. If the economy is stable or improved, an incumbent will be returned. If not, he won't.

[trekchic.livejournal.com]

Excellent post. I have had this sort of discussion with so many people and sadly we can't seem to find an answer either. We do agree however that there seems to be a seismic shift in the political landscape. Perhaps most telling is the amount of new minority voters who voted Republican.

I know one thing, if blue voters continue to dismiss the rest of the country as "ignorant rednecks" this situation will only get worse. Perhaps it's time for the "progressives" to take a closer look at the lives and concerns of our conservative breathren.

[kellychambliss.livejournal.com]

I agree that "blue" voters need to listen more openly to conservative concerns. I just wish the party leaders didn't keep interpreting this notion to mean that Dems should therefore become more socially conservative.