For years, Democrats have been in denial about how low-down and intellectually dishonest their Republican counterparts can be. Time and time again they have given conservatives the benefit of the doubt in discussions and debates , only to find out that their apparently rational positions were just a front and that the next day they would be right back in lock-step with their party talking points.
The right has used a layered approach to deliver their message – from the president right down to the talk radio freaks, they have all been unmovable in their opinions and positions, and no amount of logic or factual evidence has been able to move them one bit. Each layer being a bit more wild-eyed and loose with the facts, but all singing to the same tune. This may have worked for a while – Democrats tend to argue amongst themselves more and therefore are less effective at hammering home their positions with the public. But the problem is that when you engage in good faith debate with someone, you extend a trust and a promise – the trust that your opponent will not use dirty debate tricks (we all know what they are from when we were kids) and the promise that there is at least the possibility that you will alter your view based on the other side’s presentation. Like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown to kick, conservatives have broken the trust and the promise time and time again. Even now, when we find a conservative who will call out Rush Limbaugh for being the lunatic he is, we are shocked by the exception of a Republican going off-script.
Along with whatever political and social views conservatives have held in recent years, they have also had as part of their profile an aggressive, win at all costs mentality. I find it disingenuous when they complain over even a fraction of that kind of mentality being directed back at them.
I, like President Obama, have a very deep well of faith in people, and still hope for them to do the right thing, but I also understand people who are ready to attack anything Republican or conservative. You can only fool people so many times before they become hostile toward you and any others who march under the same banner, though some of them may be decent folks.
If we are to unite people of differing political and social views under a banner of common interest, it will take people with the courage to continue engaging their opponents in an honest fashion. Those people will take more hits and be called more names, and must be willing to call out a fool – be he of their own party or the other.
I hope we can all shed our many “ism”’s and look to tending to the things we all hope for – peace, freedom, prosperity, and good health. There is no need to layer ideologies on top of these things – they can stand on their own.
In the Wall Street Journal article Rick Warren, Obama and the Left (no by-line), they come to the conclusion that the objections from the left over the choice of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation is an example of the same intolerance that some on the left are supposedly fighting against. This raises some interesting questions. What is intolerance? When is it okay to be intolerant? Can a victim of intolerance negate their own credibility if they are, in turn, intolerant of another group?
In this case, the objection to Rick Warren stems from his organization’s intolerance of gay and lesbian people. By all accounts he is tolerant on a personal level, but draws the line at admitting unrepentant gays and lesbians as full members of his organization. Of course, those who support equal rights for gays and lesbians – including their right to marry – take umbrage at this. It has been reported that some will withdraw their support of Barack Obama for his inclusion of Warren in the inauguration ceremony. Now, Barack Obama has supported full rights for gays and lesbians, with the exception of using the word marriage to describe their unions, but otherwise affording them identical legal protection – a distinction that many can write off as mere word-parsing.
So, do people who are intolerant of intolerance cede the moral high-ground in this situation? What about people who are intolerant of people who tolerate intolerance? Kind of makes your head spin. Is it more righteous to be tolerant of people who preach intolerance while remaining intolerant of intolerance itself? What about the people who belong to the organization that preaches intolerance but may not preach it themselves? Woooeeee this gets complicated real fast, folks!
Can we agree that all intolerance is not created equal? Most everyone would likely be intolerant of people who kick puppies – do they need to recuse themselves from opposition to other forms of intolerance based on their intolerance in this area? Does all opposition to intolerance then fall into this category due to opposition being a form of intolerance itself?
One thing is for sure – even thought they lost the elections, the conservatives still hold the language advantage. Their ability to toss out a language grenade and, if nothing else, leave people confused and reeling about words and concepts is unmatched. I doubt I’ll ever untangle this one, and the time I’ve spent on it is time I’m not thinking about the other important issues of the day. There is also beauty in how they all sing in unison, no – more like an orchestra with many parts. Whether you are listening to the President, a member of Congress, Fox News, Limbaugh, Colter, Pat Robertson, a guy carrying a “God Hates Fags” sign at a rally, or reading a chain-email from your conservative buddy, you can recognize the different melodies as being part and parcel of the same underlying composition, though they may use different words.
I choose to hold out hope that we can someday all live and work together without the need to look down on groups we disapprove of. I believe President Elect Obama (President Electro-Bama) holds this same hope. I will try to find a balance between fighting for what I believe, while showing tolerance and good-will towards those I disagree with. We all need each other in the end.
I don’t much like the current version of the Republican party, but there have been some things I have liked about them in the past. Being thrifty, avoiding foreign entanglements, supporting the rights of the individual over the state, and pushing decision-making down to the local level where appropriate have all been Republican principals at one time or another. So, in that spirit, here are some things you can do to make your party viable in the 21st century:
1. Tell the truth.
2. Admit when you’re wrong.
3. Value people over profits.
4. The economic dogma that prescribes deregulation and trickle-down theory for every single scenario doesn’t work. People are the bottom line – not religious adherence to an economic principle.
5. People do not want ANY religion shoved down their throats. Stop trying to.
6. Science is not always infallible, but it the best approximation we have about how things work. Look to science to inform your opinions, don’t cherry-pick science to support the opinions you already have while suppressing other viewpoints.
Try these things and let me know how it goes. Or don’t. It might be healthy for our democracy for a major party to bite the dust now and then.
President-elect Obama emailed me to ask for my thoughts on a long-term plan for the economy. Instead of riffing on bailouts, public-works programs and the like, I went with something else that has been bouncing around my head lately – the hoarding of intellectual property. While not a fully-formed plan, I believe it is one of the meta-issues that is preventing new ideas and technology from fulfilling their greatest promise to our society. Here is what I wrote to him:
When the race was called for Barack Obama last Tuesday I was happy, no – more like relieved. The October Surprise never materialized, no message from Bin Laden, no new war with Iran, Syria, Russia or N. Korea, no new lie from the right-wing hate machine that went viral, no gaffe or slip of the tongue that gave people a reason to vote against their conscience. What I did not feel was the emotional catharsis that seemed to grip people all around the country.
To the 110th Congress,
On the 100 hour agenda: it’s a good start, but we need to go much further to re-establish our government as by the People and for the People.